wake_sandbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: the 409 conflict at the owner's limit, its payload (`reason` plus the running sandboxes), and the documented remediation via the `sleep` parameter. It does not mention auth requirements, whether waking is idempotent, or what a successful response looks like, leaving some gaps for a resource-consuming mutation.

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 action and the states it handles, then the limit/409 detail, then the endpoint. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing 'HTTP POST /sandboxes/{name}/start' line is largely restatement of what the body already implies.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior — and it covers the main path, the error path, and the limit workaround. Missing only the success return shape and permission requirements, which keeps it short of fully complete for a slot-consuming operation.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it explains the non-obvious `sleep` parameter ('puts one of them to sleep first') in a way the schema's bare example does not. The required `name` parameter is left implicit, though its meaning (the sandbox to wake) is inferable from the endpoint path.

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 — 'Wakes an asleep or deep-sleeping sandbox' — and covers both source states, which an agent can distinguish from sleep_sandbox and deep_sleep_sandbox. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from keep_sandbox_awake, the closest sibling, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiating.

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 concrete operational when-to-use case: at the owner's limit (running sandboxes, slots, or a full server) it returns 409 with `reason` and the running sandboxes, and `{"sleep": "<name>"}` lets you put one to sleep first. That is real guidance for a non-obvious workflow, but it never contrasts this tool with keep_sandbox_awake or restart_sandbox, so no explicit alternatives are named.

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