Liên kết MONA Cloud chuyển tiếp

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond that — the token is only switched to vc_live when the upstream is in legacy mode — but omits auth requirements, side effects on existing state, and reversibility.

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 compact sentence with no filler or repetition. It is dense and jargon-heavy, but nothing is wasted, and the conditional is front-loaded after the primary clause.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no usage routing, the description leaves the agent unable to determine when to call it, what state it changes, or how it relates to monapay_link/vibecloud_link. The telegraphed Vietnamese token-migration jargon does not fill that gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. No parameter syntax or formats are needed here.

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 gestures at an action ("Xác nhận compute MONA Cloud nhận MONA Pass trực tiếp") but is framed around internal token mechanics rather than stating plainly what cloud_link does. It never clarifies the resource being linked, and with near-duplicate siblings (monapay_link, vibecloud_link, and the whole parallel vibecloud_* family) nothing distinguishes this from those alternatives.

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 statement of when to invoke this tool, no prerequisites, and no mapping to alternatives despite many sibling link/token tools. The "chỉ đổi thành vc_live token khi upstream còn ở chế độ cũ" clause describes a conditional side effect, not a usage rule an agent can act on.

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