vibecloud_app_create

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and largely delivers: first app host takes ~2–3 minutes, subsequent deploys 10–20 seconds; sandbox=true is free with no real infrastructure; real deploys are billable and require a one-time cost approval; polling continues until done/succeeded; credit top-up threshold of 20k is stated. Missing only failure/cleanup behavior.

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 front-loaded with the alias statement and nearly every clause carries information, but it is a long bilingual block with an arrow-chain workflow, duplicated in Vietnamese and English, ending with a compact English summary. It is dense and hard to scan rather than concisely structured.

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 14-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the end-to-end flow impressively: detect, estimate cost, get approval once, deploy, poll, return URL, attach domain, plus cost/timing/credit details. However, it leaves the majority of parameters unexplained, says nothing about failure behavior, and never distinguishes this tool from the cloud_app_deploy siblings — meaningful gaps at this complexity level.

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 only 7% (just sandbox has a description), so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for the most consequential parameters: local_dir vs repo_url as two source modes, sandbox free/no-infra semantics, optional domain handling, and polling behavior matching wait/timeout_sec/interval_sec. But env, name, port, branch, build_type, dockerfile, and app_host_id remain undocumented in both schema and 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 identifies the tool as a compatibility alias of cloud_app_create and conveys its core effect: deploying an app from a local directory or git repo and returning a URL. It also differentiates itself from agent_deploy by explicitly saying not to use it for project deployment. However, the purpose statement is embedded in a long workflow narrative rather than stated crisply at the top.

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?

Provides clear usage routing: use cloud_app_detect first for local dirs, use sandbox=true for cost estimation before real deployment, obtain one-time human cost approval, and use cloud_app_domain_add with CNAME instructions when the human has a domain. Explicitly excludes agent_deploy. The main gap is not distinguishing when to use cloud_app_deploy/vibecloud_app_deploy instead of this create tool.

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