Tạo VPS MONA Cloud

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: estimating pricing first, asking for approval before creation, checking the wallet balance, returning estimate and job_id, and supporting a zero-cost sandbox mode. It does not cover failure behavior or how approval is requested, but the core side effects are visible.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important constraint: estimate and ask for approval before creating. It packs a lot of useful guidance into a short space, though the English summary '/ Estimate, approve, create VPS.' repeats the earlier workflow and the sandbox sentence largely duplicates the schema.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers a lot: pricing source selection, monthly vs hourly behavior, wallet validation, job_id return, and sandbox. Still, it leaves required app_name undefined, does not clarify how billing_mode defaults, and does not explicitly separate this tool from vibecloud_create_vps.

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 11%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explaining that monthly mode comes from plan_code and ignores CPU/RAM/disk, while hourly mode relates to cloud_prices/cloud_packages, and it clarifies period and sandbox behavior. However, app_name, billing_mode, and package_slug are not explained directly, leaving a real gap for a 9-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the tool creates a VPS and adds the concrete workflow 'Estimate, approve, create VPS', which is more specific than a generic create action. It does not explicitly differentiate from vibecloud_create_vps or other VPS creation siblings, but 'MONA Cloud' in the title and the cloud_* pricing references give indirect context.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to read cloud_plan_list for monthly or cloud_prices/cloud_packages for hourly, and explains when to use plan_code vs CPU/RAM/disk parameters. It also gives sandbox usage guidance and notes the wallet-check requirement, but it does not state an explicit exclusion like 'use vibecloud_create_vps for VibeCloud'.

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