Start a sandbox wiki

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavior: this is a creation/mutation operation, it returns a sandbox_id, and the model id becomes part of that id. It leaves gaps on sandbox lifetime, whether duplicates can be created, and any permission or rate-limit constraints.

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 routing constraint is front-loaded, which is good, but there is redundancy: 'ask the user' appears twice in different forms and the example repeats the model-id guidance already in the schema. Two or three sentences could be cut without losing information.

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 single-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return value, the parameter's downstream effect, and the disambiguation path. It does not say what a sandbox is for or how long it persists, which an agent may need to set user expectations.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the model value's consequence (it becomes part of the sandbox_id) and an explicit fallback ('if nobody told you your model id, ask the user for it'). It also warns against copying the example value, which guards a realistic failure mode.

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 ('Create a NEW sandbox wiki') plus the artifact returned ('get its sandbox_id'). It also distinguishes itself from the read-path sibling wiki_status, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Explicitly gives the when ('only when the user wants a new wiki'), the when-not ('if the user gave you a sandbox_id'), the named alternative (wiki_status), and a fallback ('if you are not sure, ask the user first'). This is about as complete as usage routing gets.

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