keep_sandbox_awake

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it explains the mechanism (one request through the sandbox's router, 'as any visit would'), the effect (sleeps a full idle timeout from now), and the key boundary (does not wake a sleeping sandbox). It omits auth requirements, error behavior for a nonexistent sandbox, and response shape, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the effect, then mechanism, then the important caveat, then the underlying endpoint. Four short units with no filler; the HTTP path is arguably redundant but cheap and informative.

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 simple one-parameter action with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, mechanism, side effect, and the sleeping-sandbox boundary. Missing only the return/confirmation behavior, which is minor here.

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 0% and there is one required parameter, but the description's HTTP path 'POST /sandboxes/{name}/keep-awake' implicitly conveys that 'name' identifies the sandbox. That is reasonable compensation, though it never states the parameter's semantics in words.

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+resource ('Start the sleep countdown over' for a sandbox) and explicitly scopes it against the sibling concern: 'Does not wake a sleeping sandbox.' An agent can distinguish it from wake_sandbox, sleep_sandbox, and deep_sleep_sandbox without reading any schema.

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?

Gives a clear condition ('For a running sandbox') and an exclusion ('Does not wake a sleeping sandbox'), which effectively routes the agent to wake_sandbox for the sleeping case. It stops short of naming that alternative explicitly, so it is clear context without full when/when-not/alternative phrasing.

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