rebuild service MONA Cloud

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description usefully adds billing behavior (possible cost, wallet pre-check) and a free sandbox mode, which annotations do not cover. But it is silent on the defining trait of a rebuild — whether the existing container/database is wiped and whether there is downtime — which matters given destructiveHint=false.

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?

Three short fragments, with the resource and verb front-loaded before the billing caveat and the sandbox modifier. Every clause carries information; only the mixed Vietnamese/English phrasing slightly impedes scanability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries return-value burden, yet it says nothing about what happens after a rebuild (job id, downtime, status polling via cloud_job_status). For a billed, non-idempotent mutation the coverage is adequate but leaves real operational gaps.

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 coverage is only 50%: service_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The one parameter the description does explain (sandbox=true: 0đ, no wallet) is a verbatim restatement of the schema's own description field, so it adds no meaning. The primary identifier parameter is left entirely undefined.

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 ('rebuild') and resource ('VPS/database MONA Cloud'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling lifecycle tools cloud_service_start / cloud_service_stop. It does not explicitly name the near-duplicate vibecloud_rebuild, so the sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 description gives indirect usage guidance: it warns that the command may incur costs and requires a wallet check, and that sandbox=true performs a free trial without a wallet. However, it never says when to rebuild versus start/stop/recreate, nor when to prefer the vibecloud_* variant, leaving the operator to infer the decision.

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