Công cụ MONA base create

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the multi-step estimate/check/create/poll-to-completion flow and the sandbox-only-estimate mode. However it omits wallet/cost implications of the failed-wallet path, retry/duplicate semantics for a non-idempotent create, and auth requirements, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

It is reasonably front-loaded, leading with the alias relationship, but the three slash-separated bilingual segments repeat the same content and inflate length without adding distinct information. Adequately sized but not tight.

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 six-parameter, zero-required create tool with no output schema, the description conveys the overall operation and the sandbox caveat but leaves the resource-sizing parameters (cpu/ram/disk/plan/billing) and the wallet-charge/failure behavior unexplained. It is minimally sufficient, not complete.

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 the sandbox flag is documented in the schema. The description reinforces sandbox semantics ('only returns an estimate') but adds nothing about cpu, ram_gb, disk_gb, plan_code, or billing_mode, leaving five of six parameters with no meaning anywhere. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 (create a Base / Supabase replacement) and explicitly frames itself as the compatibility alias of cloud_base_create, which helps an agent disambiguate from the cloud_base_create sibling. It also sketches the sequence (estimate, wallet check, create, poll). It falls short of 5 because the alias relationship and the 'Base = Supabase replacement' framing are somewhat indirect rather than a crisp one-line purpose.

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 implies usage context by noting 'sandbox only returns an estimate' and that the operation polls a job to completion, but it never says when to pick this over cloud_base_create, cloud_db_create, or vibecloud_create_database, nor lists exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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