start service MONA Cloud

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: a billing charge may be triggered, a wallet balance check is performed beforehand, and sandbox=true is a free trial requiring no wallet. It does not disclose what happens on a repeat call (despite non-idempotentHint) or whether the start is asynchronous.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool starts, then cost and sandbox caveats. No filler. The mixed Vietnamese/English phrasing is compact but slightly reduces scannability for agents not expecting bilingual text.

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, the description covers the important billing/wallet prerequisite and the sandbox escape hatch, which is the crux of calling it safely. It still omits how to source service_id and what the agent should expect after a successful start (e.g., async provisioning), leaving a moderate 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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the sole covered field (sandbox) is documented with the identical string already in the schema, so the description adds no new parameter meaning. The required service_id has no explanation anywhere — the agent is not told where to obtain a valid service ID. That is a real gap the description should have filled.

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 ('start') and resource ('VPS/database MONA Cloud'), which is clear enough to distinguish from cloud_service_stop and the create_* siblings. It does not, however, address the near-duplicate sibling vibecloud_start, so an agent gets no help choosing between the cloud_ and vibecloud_ variants.

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 implies usage context by warning that the command may incur cost and that the wallet is checked first, and it offers sandbox=true as a zero-cost alternative. It never states when NOT to use it or how to choose between this tool and vibecloud_start / cloud_vps_create, so guidance stays implied rather than explicit.

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