Đặt ngân sách MONA Cloud

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

The annotations already declare the full profile (mutating, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds no behavioral context beyond them — it does not say whether an existing budget is overwritten, what happens on exceeding the limit, or any auth requirements. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes nothing new.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of the overall under-specification problem rather than an intentional trade-off.

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 4-parameter required mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin — period, limit_vnd, and scope_id are left entirely unexplained and there is no usage context. An agent cannot confidently construct a call from this.

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 carry parameter meaning, yet it only loosely gestures at the scope values (product/project/token) that the enum already defines. Nothing explains limit_vnd (units/currency), period, or scope_id format.

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 gives a specific verb (đặt/set) and resource (giới hạn chi tiêu/spending limit) and enumerates the three scopes (product, project, token). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling cloud_budget_get to distinguish the two budget tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus cloud_budget_get, cloud_token_limit, or other quota tools, and no prerequisites (e.g., ownership or admin rights) are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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