Công cụ MONA app deploy

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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), which the description does not contradict. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral context: first git host goes live in ~2–3 minutes, subsequent deploys 10–20 seconds, and the local_dir flow (zip → upload → wait job → deploy) is async and polled.

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?

The leading sentence defines the alias up front and the key constraints follow, which is good front-loading. However, every statement is duplicated in Vietnamese and English, roughly doubling the length, and the same alias/timing/upload facts are restated rather than compressed.

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 only 17% schema coverage, the description covers the timing and async flow well but omits authentication/permission needs, failure/error behavior, and the meaning of the wait/timeout_sec/interval_sec polling parameters. Adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is only 17% — just sandbox is documented — so the description carries most of the burden. It meaningfully explains local_dir (omitting it triggers a redeploy of the uploaded build) and implies wait/polling behavior, but app_id, wait, timeout_sec, and interval_sec remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb+resource (deploy an app, redeploy uploaded source or a git app) and clarifies it is a compatibility alias of cloud_app_deploy. However, it does not differentiate why an agent should pick this alias over the identical sibling cloud_app_deploy, so sibling differentiation is weak.

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 gives one conditional rule — supply local_dir to zip/upload a new build, omit it to redeploy the already-uploaded source — which implies usage. But it never states when to use vibecloud_app_deploy versus cloud_app_deploy (the alias relationship is asserted, not operationalized), and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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