remove_sandbox_mount

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, so the description carries real weight here and delivers: admin authorization requirement, the non-obvious side effect that the sandbox container is recreated, and the underlying HTTP DELETE endpoint. It stops short of saying whether data on the mount is lost, which matters for a destructive op.

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-loads the verb and admin gate, then the side effect, then the endpoint. Compact and every line carries information; only the parenthetical '(admin)' duplicates the later 'Admin only' sentence.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with annotations and no output schema, it covers the important unknowns: authorization, container recreation, and endpoint semantics. The remaining gap is the fate of mount contents and the meaning of 'name'.

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 coverage is 50%: 'target' is documented in the schema, but 'name' has no description in either place. The description refers to 'this target' without clarifying whether 'name' is the sandbox name or the mount identifier, leaving a genuine ambiguity.

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: unmount/remove a host folder mount from a sandbox, scoped to a named target. Clear enough to separate from add_sandbox_mount, though the counterpart is not named explicitly.

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?

Adds the 'Admin only' gate and a useful nuance that removal works even after HOST_MOUNT_ROOTS is unset, but gives no guidance on prerequisites (e.g. locate the mount via list_sandbox_mounts first) or how to choose between mount operations.

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