Alias cũ của cloud_db_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that sandbox=true is free and requires no wallet, but it does not mention that this tool creates resources, what billing happens when sandbox is false, authentication needs, or any side effects of invoking the alias.

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 two short, focused sentences. The alias/compatibility message is front-loaded, and the sandbox note is relevant and concise. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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?

Given that this is a database-creation mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and mostly undocumented parameters, the description is not complete enough for direct invocation. It routes users to cloud_db_create for new integrations but provides no information about required inputs, return values, failure modes, or non-sandbox costs.

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 14%, with seven parameters and only sandbox documented in the schema. The description merely repeats the sandbox explanation ('thử 0đ, không cần ví') and gives no semantic guidance for app_name, engine, cpu, ram_gb, disk_gb, or package_slug. It therefore fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 and points to cloud_db_create for new integrations, but it never explicitly states the tool's verb and resource (e.g., 'creates a database'). The purpose is inferable from the name, title, and schema rather than actually described.

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 to use cloud_db_create for new integrations, which clearly tells an agent when not to use this tool and names the preferred alternative. The legacy-only usage is strongly implied by the instruction.

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