provision_sandbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions instant minting, no credentials required, and a response safety block. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is idempotent, or what happens on repeated calls (e.g., will it create multiple tenants?). Adequate but could be more explicit.

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?

The description is extremely concise, comprising two sentences that convey purpose, usage nuance, and a hint about response content. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, usage context (auto-provisioning), and mentions a response detail. The mention of 'BEC hard-stops' is slightly cryptic but does not detract significantly.

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 100% for a single optional parameter ('label'). The description adds 'Optional human label' which mirrors the schema description. No additional semantic value is provided beyond what is already in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: minting a free sandbox tenant token instantly. It provides specific verb ('mint') and resource ('sandbox tenant token'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, though the note about auto-provisioning implies it is a fallback.

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 description indicates when to use the tool ('when you need a sandbox token') and notes that most tools auto-provision, so it may not be needed. This provides context but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool references.

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