vibecloud_credit_redeem

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful context: the code must be user-approved, not guessed, and must be an approved promotional code. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., credit balance changes, irreversibility) or failure conditions for invalid/redeemed codes.

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 and front-loaded with the alias relationship, followed by the operational constraint. Bilingual repetition is mildly redundant but not bloated.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers how to obtain the code and what not to do, but omits what the tool returns and whether redemption is irreversible. This is a modest but real gap for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 for the undocumented 'code' parameter. It partially does by specifying the code is an approved promotional code supplied by the user and not to be guessed, adding meaning beyond the raw property name. It does not provide format hints or examples.

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 states a specific action (redeem), a resource (promotional credit code), and explicitly identifies itself as a compatibility alias of cloud_credit_redeem. This makes its function unambiguous and distinguishes it from the many other cloud_* / vibecloud_* siblings.

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 instructs to use the code only after the user agrees and explicitly warns not to guess codes, which is valuable operational guidance. The alias note clarifies its relationship to cloud_credit_redeem, though it doesn't state conditional selection between the two aliases.

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