Alias cũ của cloud_agent_deploy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the sandbox=true free-trial/no-wallet behavior, which is useful, but it does not disclose deployment side effects, authentication requirements, failure modes, or whether the alias behaves identically to cloud_agent_deploy beyond the vague 'compatible alias' phrasing.

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 short, front-loaded with the alias/deprecation message, and every clause contributes useful information. The sandbox hint is slightly redundant with the schema but relevant enough to justify its place.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and an opaque required template parameter, the description is incomplete for standalone invocation. The redirect to cloud_agent_deploy helps an agent find more information, but the description itself does not provide enough context to call the tool confidently without inspecting the sibling.

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 50%: the required 'template' parameter has only a regex pattern and no semantic description. The description only repeats the sandbox meaning already present in the schema and does not explain what template values should be, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 identifies the tool as a compatible alias of cloud_agent_deploy and points new integrations to that sibling, but it never states the underlying operation with a verb and resource. It relies on the tool name and the canonical sibling to convey what the tool actually does.

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 explicitly says 'dùng cloud_agent_deploy cho tích hợp mới' (use cloud_agent_deploy for new integrations), naming the alternative and the condition. It implies this alias is for legacy compatibility, which is clear enough guidance for an agent deciding which tool to use.

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