Công cụ MONA subscription update

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

Annotations already declare destructive, idempotent and open-world behavior, but the description adds real value: upgrade is prorated, downgrade applies next period, and cancellation is expressed concretely as auto_renew=false with cancel_action. It does not describe what state is destroyed or the approval mechanics in detail, keeping it below 5.

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?

Content is dense and front-loaded with the alias statement, but the bilingual duplication means essentially every sentence appears twice, so some of the text does not add unique information. Structure is workable but not maximally efficient.

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 0% schema coverage, the description covers the key behavioral distinctions (upgrade vs downgrade billing, cancellation path) and the pre-requisite of reading subscription/price. It leaves the required service_id and the approval/response flow unspecified, so it is not fully 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most parameters — it names plan/cycle, defines auto_renew=false for cancellation, and enumerates cancel_action=hourly|stop. Only the required service_id is left unexplained, which is the main gap.

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 and resource — change plan/billing cycle/renewal or cancel a subscription — and identifies itself as a compatibility alias of cloud_subscription_update, which distinguishes it from sibling tools. The alias framing is prominent but the actual operation (update/cancel) is clear.

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?

Implies a workflow (read subscription and price, estimate, then approval) and describes the upgrade-prorated / downgrade-next-period rule plus cancel semantics, so usage context is present. However it never explicitly names when to prefer this over cloud_subscription_update or other tools, nor states exclusions.

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