writ_sandbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the 90-second lifetime, that no API key is required, the exact verb restricted to it, the target prefix constraint, and that it auto-runs writ_check returning an ALLOW decision plus auth token. Only minor gaps remain around failure modes (e.g., what happens with a non-'demo-' target).

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 core value is front-loaded ('Get a free 90-second sandbox grant'), with supporting detail after. It is compact and every sentence adds information, though the second sentence packs several nested clauses.

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?

An output schema exists, so return contents need not be explained (the description still does, helpfully). However, for a 4-required-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, three parameters have no semantics anywhere, leaving the agent unable to populate the call correctly.

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 define all four parameters. It only adds meaning for 'target' (must start with 'demo-'); sponsor_id, agent_id, and purpose are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: issue a 90-second sandbox grant for a 'demo_write' on a 'demo-' target. It implicitly separates itself from writ_grant by being the free, no-key practice path, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied: 'for a demo write' and 'to practice the verify-before-write flow end to end' suggest a sandbox/practice scenario. There is no explicit when-to-use versus the very similar writ_grant, and no when-not-to-use or prerequisites beyond the free/keyless note.

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