Công cụ MONA credit redeem

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the write-like nature is covered. The description usefully adds that codes must be user-provided and pre-approved rather than invented, but says nothing about whether a successful redemption consumes the code permanently, what happens to an already-used code, or whether retries are safe.

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?

Very short and front-loaded — the constraint and the action both land in one breath. The cost is that the same content is stated twice (Vietnamese then English), which is defensible for locale coverage but is pure duplication for a single-locale agent.

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 one-parameter redemption call with no output schema, an agent still does not know what a successful redemption returns (credit amount, new balance) or how failures surface. The annotations cover the safety profile, but the description leaves outcome semantics and code-reuse behavior unspecified.

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% for the single 'code' parameter, so the description carries the burden; it adds real meaning by specifying the code is a user-supplied promotional credit code and must never be guessed. It still omits any note on format or the 2–64 character bounds documented only in 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource — 'redeem an approved promotional credit code' — so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the near-identical sibling 'vibecloud_credit_redeem', which appears in the same toolset with no stated difference.

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?

It gives two concrete usage constraints: use the code the user supplied, and do so only after they consent, plus an explicit prohibition on guessing codes. What it lacks is any routing guidance — nothing says when to pick this over 'vibecloud_credit_redeem' or when redemption is inappropriate (expired code, already-redeemed account).

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