Giới hạn chi tiêu của token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the target and scope; it does not disclose whether an existing spend guard is overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the response or error behavior looks like.

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 no filler and the main action front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though slightly too terse to carry the behavioral and parameter information an agent needs.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits behavior on overwrite, the meaning of period, the interpretation of spend_limit_vnd, and any return or confirmation details. An agent would need to guess several important aspects before safely invoking the tool.

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. It explains the role of token_id by mentioning 'token hiện tại hoặc token_id chỉ định', but it does not explain spend_limit_vnd or period, including the accepted day/month values. The most important parameters are left undocumented in the description.

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 uses a specific verb 'Đặt' (set) and identifies the resource as a spend guard scoped to either the current token or a specified token_id. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from broader budget tools like cloud_budget_set, though it does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative.

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 implies when to use the tool: to set a per-token spend guard for the current token or a specified token_id. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it, does not mention alternatives, and does not clarify prerequisites or the relationship to other budget/spend tools.

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