Giới hạn chi tiêu của token

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

Annotations already disclose the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds only the vague term 'spend guard' and does not explain what the guard does (does it block spending?), what spend_limit_vnd=0 means, or whether changes can be undone.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, that brevity is partly the cause of the coverage gaps noted above rather than pure efficiency.

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?

This is a mutating tool with no output schema, zero schema description coverage, and no usage guidance. For a three-parameter spend-control operation, the description omits too much for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description bears full responsibility. It usefully clarifies that token_id is optional and defaults to the current token, but it never explains spend_limit_vnd (currency, units) or the day/month period semantics, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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 (Đặt = set) and resource (spend guard/spend limit) scoped to the current token or a named token_id. The purpose is clear, but it never names or distinguishes itself from sibling budget tools such as cloud_budget_set or cloud_budget_get, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternative named. The phrase 'token hiện tại hoặc token_id chỉ định' describes a parameter default choice, not a usage condition, so the agent gets no help deciding between this and cloud_budget_set.

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