create_sandbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether creation is synchronous or returns immediately (leaving the agent to guess relative to wake_sandbox/sleep_sandbox), what permissions or quotas apply, or what side effects (containers, network, volumes) are triggered.

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?

It is very short and front-loaded with no filler, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than discipline; the 'HTTP POST /sandboxes' line is near-redundant with the tool name for an agent that does not need REST routing details.

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 10-parameter mutating creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin: it omits what gets created, how limits/defaults are resolved (env vars vs template vs host), and what the caller receives. The rich schema partially compensates for parameter detail, but the overall context is incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 90%, so the 10 parameters (cpus, memory, template, compose, idle_timeout, deep_sleep_after, etc.) are already well documented in the schema with defaults and examples. The description adds no parameter meaning on top of that, which lands at the baseline 3.

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?

The description gives a concrete verb+resource ('Create sandbox') and the HTTP route POST /sandboxes, so the agent knows what resource is being created and can separate it from siblings like list_sandboxes or create_sandbox_folder. However, it is essentially the tool name restated and adds no scope, defaults, or differentiation language beyond the endpoint.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. create_sandbox_folder, create_token). An agent learns nothing about when this tool is the right choice versus other creation tools.

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