Đặt ngân sách MONA Cloud

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states the action. It does not reveal whether the call creates or overwrites an existing budget, whether limit_vnd is a hard cap or a soft alert, or what side effects occur for running resources. For a write operation, this is a significant gap.

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 Vietnamese sentence with zero filler; the verb and scope dimensions are front-loaded. Every word earns its place, though the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, which is penalized in other dimensions.

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?

The tool has 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is only one short sentence. An agent lacks the information to construct valid calls (ID formats, limit semantics, period behavior) or to anticipate the consequences of setting a budget.

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 should compensate, but it only echoes the scope enum values. It gives no guidance on scope_id (whose ID, where to find it), how limit_vnd is interpreted (per period, total, tax-inclusive), or what period means in billing terms.

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 and resource: 'Đặt giới hạn chi tiêu' (set spending limit), and enumerates the three scopes (product, project, token). This clearly identifies what the tool does and reads as the write counterpart to cloud_budget_get. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from cloud_token_limit, whose scope could overlap when scope=token, so full sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description neither mentions that reading budgets belongs to cloud_budget_get nor explains how this differs from cloud_token_limit or cloud_subscription_update. The agent must infer usage purely from sibling tool names.

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