Công cụ MONA base delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the deletion is restricted to 'approved' bases. It does not state irreversibility, auth/permission requirements, or what happens to underlying data, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 content is short and front-loaded with the action, but the same information is repeated three times across Vietnamese and English, which is padding rather than added meaning. It avoids bloat but wastes space on redundant translation.

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 destructive, single-parameter tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description conveys the core action and one precondition. It still leaves the agent without the meaning of base_id or any warning about irreversibility/confirmation, so it is only minimally 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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter base_id is undocumented in the schema. The description says nothing about base_id's form, source, or how to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap despite the small parameter set.

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 ('Delete an approved Base') and even defines what a 'Base beta' is (Supabase replacement on the shared MONA Cloud account/wallet), which helps an agent identify the object type. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling cloud_base_create/get/list or the duplicate vibecloud_base_delete, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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 phrase 'approved Base' implies a precondition (only approved bases are deletable), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as vibecloud_base_delete or the list/get tools an agent should consult first. An agent gets no routing help.

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