Alias cũ của cloud_service_rebuild

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context by stating that sandbox=true is free and requires no wallet, and it signals that the tool is a compatibility alias. However, it does not disclose that rebuilding likely modifies or recreates a service, nor does it mention authentication needs or response 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 very short and front-loads the most important routing information in the first sentence. The sandbox sentence is useful but somewhat redundant with the schema. Overall, every sentence serves a purpose and there is no padding.

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 simple alias tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not self-sufficient. It tells the agent to use the canonical tool for new integrations, but an agent unfamiliar with cloud_service_rebuild would still lack clarity on what the rebuild operation actually does and what service_id should refer to.

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 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented service_id parameter beyond its minLength constraint. The sandbox=true line duplicates the schema description exactly rather than adding new meaning. The required service_id remains unexplained 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 ('Alias tương thích') and points to cloud_service_rebuild as the canonical sibling, so an agent can tell it is the legacy entry point for the same operation. It does not explicitly describe the underlying 'rebuild' action, but the name and canonical reference make the purpose reasonably clear.

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 tells the agent to use cloud_service_rebuild for new integrations, which clearly distinguishes when this alias is intended for legacy compatibility vs when the canonical tool should be selected. The sandbox=true guidance also gives a concrete usage condition. This is direct routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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