Alias cũ của cloud_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the deprecation/compatibility context and says nothing about side effects, retries, or whether calls are billed/mutating — adequate but thin against existing annotation coverage.

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 short sentence that front-loads the alias status and then the replacement recommendation. No filler and no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter alias the description covers the essential routing decision, but it omits what operation is being aliased and whether calling it has any cost or side effect, which matters given readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. It is minimally sufficient rather than 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?

The input schema declares zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4; no parameter pitfalls are introduced.

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 says this is a compatibility alias and points to cloud_link, so an agent can tell it is a deprecated duplicate of a sibling. However, it never states what the tool actually does (e.g., create a payment link), so the underlying verb+resource is left implicit and must be inferred from the name and the cloud_link sibling.

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?

"dùng cloud_link cho tích hợp mới" explicitly routes new integrations to the alternative, which is exactly the guidance an agent needs for a deprecated alias. It lacks any statement about when this alias should still be used (e.g., existing integrations), which keeps it short of a 5.

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