Công cụ MONA base delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds a real precondition beyond that: the Base must already be user-approved before deletion. It does not state irreversibility or wallet/account side-effects.

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 bilingual duplication roughly doubles the length without adding information, and 'Compatibility alias' is restated twice. The core fact is front-loaded, but the beta/Supabase explanation could be trimmed.

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 tool the annotations cover the safety profile and the alias/approval note is useful, but with no output schema and an entirely undocumented parameter, the definition leaves an agent needing to infer base_id and the post-delete state.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema carries no semantics at all. The description never explains what base_id is, its expected format, or how to obtain it, leaving the sole parameter effectively 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 (delete) and resource (an approved Base), and explicitly positions itself as a compatibility alias of cloud_base_delete, which helps with sibling disambiguation. The beta/Supabase explanation adds verbosity but the core action is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'approved Base' implies a precondition (only approved bases are deletable), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no statement about which of the two aliases (vibecloud_base_delete vs. cloud_base_delete) an agent should prefer.

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