run-once

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the guarantee of deletion even on timeout, which is a strong behavioral trait. It also implies resource creation and termination. It does not mention failure modes, such as what happens if creation fails or if the command fails, but the core lifecycle is transparent. The description adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and lifecycle. Every element serves a purpose: 'throwaway' signals no persistent state, 'run one command' specifies the scope, and 'delete even on timeout' highlights a key guarantee. No filler; it's efficient and easily parseable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 params, nested objects, output schema), the description provides essential lifecycle semantics but leaves many parameter-specific details to the schema. Since an output schema exists, return values are documented. The description covers the unique behavioral aspect (deletion) and the core workflow, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It does not list replacement logic or edge cases, but these are not always necessary. With the schema and output schema, this is reasonably complete.

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%, not high, so the description must compensate. Many parameters (env, cpus, image, stdin, target, command, network, workdir, memoryMb, allowCidrs, allowHosts, timeoutSecs) are already described in the schema, but the description adds critical value by noting that 'allowCidrs' and 'allowHosts' override network, and that 'blocked' egress behaves differently on local vs cloud. This is crucial context not in the schema. Even with some schema coverage, this extra clarification is valuable.

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 with a specific verb ('run'), resource ('machine'), and lifecycle semantics ('create', 'run one command', 'delete'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the throwaway nature and the deletion guarantee even on timeout. The description is dense but conveys the core workflow.

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 implies usage for one-off commands without cleanup, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with run-command or create-machine. It mentions deletion on timeout, which hints at when to prefer this tool (need for cleanup), but does not provide explicit 'use X instead' guidance. Given five siblings, more explicit routing would improve clarity.

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