Tạo database MONA Cloud

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that wallet verification happens first, the operation returns a job_id for polling, and sandbox mode avoids charges. However, it does not disclose billing/charge behavior beyond the sandbox case, failure modes, or what happens after the job completes.

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 description is two short sentences with no filler. The core workflow is front-loaded ('check wallet, then create') and the sandbox exception is stated compactly afterward. Every phrase contributes useful information.

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?

This is a complex creation tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to provide more context. It mentions job_id for polling but does not explain package_slug, resource sizing semantics, or how results/errors will be returned. An agent would likely need to inspect sibling tools or infer too much to invoke this correctly in non-sandbox cases.

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 14%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It only repeats the engine types and the sandbox meaning already present in the schema, while cpu, ram_gb, disk_gb, package_slug, and app_name receive no added semantic guidance. For a seven-parameter tool, this is insufficient.

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 action ('tạo'), the resource types (MongoDB/PostgreSQL/MySQL), and the asynchronous behavior (returns job_id to poll). The title 'Tạo database MONA Cloud' also differentiates it from the sibling vibecloud_create_database. It is clear and actionable, though the description itself does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools.

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 description provides context that the tool checks the shared wallet before creating and that sandbox=true is for free trials without a wallet. This gives some when-to-use guidance, but it does not mention alternatives or conditions such as when to prefer vibecloud_create_database or cloud_vps_create.

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