Công cụ MONA subscription update

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses non-obvious billing behavior: upgrades are prorated and downgrades take effect the following cycle, and cancellation is expressed as auto_renew=false plus cancel_action. This is genuinely useful. It does not say whether changes take effect immediately or how the approval step is enforced, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the primary action comes first, then pricing/cancel mechanics, with the English one-liner as a compact summary. The bilingual duplication of the same idea ('Update or cancel renewal') is mild redundancy but cheap.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the main flows (upgrade/downgrade/cancel) but leaves gaps: no note on service_id, no statement of whether the update is immediate or scheduled, and no mention of what the response returns or what errors to expect.

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. It maps plan_code ('gói'), period ('chu kỳ'), auto_renew and cancel_action (with the hourly|stop distinction) to their purposes, which is helpful, but the required service_id is never explained and no format/scope guidance is given for any field.

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 action set (đổi gói/chu kỳ/gia hạn, huỷ) on a specific resource (subscription), and the English tail 'Update or cancel renewal' confirms it. It is clearly distinct from cloud_subscription_list or cloud_prices, though it never names a sibling variant (vibecloud_subscription_update) to disambiguate.

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 outlines a real workflow constraint: read the subscription and prices first, estimate, then get approval before changing. That is usable context for when to invoke it, though it never states exclusions or explicitly names the read tools (cloud_subscription_list, cloud_prices) it depends on.

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