stop service 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. It does add value by stating the action is always permitted and that stopping reduces costs, which hints at billing behavior. But it omits the risk profile: whether stopping is reversible via cloud_service_start, whether a stopped database loses data availability, or whether running workloads are affected.

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 a single compact sentence with two clauses, both of which earn their place: the first carries the action and resource, the second adds policy/permission context. No filler or redundancy; the core information is front-loaded.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: action, resource type, and policy. But it leaves gaps: no indication of what the call returns, no confirmation that a stopped service can be restarted, and no guidance on where service_id comes from. Adequate but not 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 coverage is 50%: the sandbox parameter is well documented in the schema ('thử 0đ, không cần ví'), and service_id is reasonably self-evident from its name. However, the tool description adds no parameter information and does not explain how to obtain a valid service_id (e.g., from cloud_services_list), leaving the required parameter only minimally described.

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 ('Dừng' = stop) and a specific resource ('VPS/database MONA Cloud'), making the action unambiguous. The 'MONA Cloud' qualifier distinguishes it from the vibecloud_stop sibling, and the stop action separates it from start/rebuild siblings, though this differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 clause 'luôn cho phép dừng để người dùng hạn chế chi phí' provides a clear permission signal (always allowed) and a use-case context (cost reduction), which is genuinely useful guidance. However, it does not mention any exclusions, preconditions, or alternatives such as vibecloud_stop, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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