archive_sandbox

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well past destructiveHint=true by naming exactly what is destroyed (containers, volumes, sandbox directory), what is preserved and where (tar.gz volumes and config under opt/archive/<owner>/), and the all-or-nothing guarantee 'Nothing is removed if archiving fails'. The HTTP verb/path is a bonus detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its destructive outcome, then the preservation path, then the failure guarantee. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers destruction scope, archive destination, and failure atomicity. Only minor gaps remain, such as the return value or whether archives can later be restored.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

One parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry it. The HTTP template DELETE /sandboxes/{name} implicitly identifies the argument as the sandbox name, but nothing clarifies naming rules, whether it accepts an id, or validation behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource and then spells out the full operation sequence (stop, tar.gz volumes + config to opt/archive/<owner>/, remove containers/volumes/directory). The destructive end-state is unambiguous, though it never names the sibling delete_sandbox it most needs to be distinguished from.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'archives first, removes second' framing implies you should use this instead of a plain delete when the data matters, and the sibling list does contain delete_sandbox. But the description never states that comparison or any prerequisite (ownership/permissions) explicitly, so routing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.