Create Sandbox

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

Adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the creation is asynchronous and requires monitoring via a sibling tool. Also discloses the use of Tooling API and optional Apex class execution. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core action and API, the second lists supported types, and the third explains asynchronous behavior with a pointer to the monitoring tool. No wasted words.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: what it creates, supported types, optional Apex class, and async monitoring. It does not mention prerequisites like Dev Hub access or return value details, but the guidance to use sf_list_sandboxes fills the main gap.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter docs, so baseline is 3. The description mentions sandbox types and optional Apex class, but these are already clear in the schema. It does not add significant new meaning beyond 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?

Clearly states it creates a new sandbox org via the Tooling API (SandboxInfo object), listing supported types. The verb 'creates' plus the resource and API uniquely identify the action, distinguishing it from refresh/monitor siblings.

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 directs users to sf_list_sandboxes for monitoring the asynchronous creation. Provides clear context for when to use the tool, but does not discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives like sf_refresh_sandbox for existing sandboxes.

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