Alias cũ của cloud_service_start

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds only the sandbox cost hint ('thử 0đ, không cần ví') and says nothing about the start action itself, billing outside sandbox, side effects, or what the call returns.

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 alias/routing guidance is front-loaded in one compact clause, and the sandbox hint is short. It is appropriately terse for an alias tool, though the sandbox wording is redundant with the schema.

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 two-parameter alias, the routing to cloud_service_start and the sandbox hint give enough to select the tool. However, with no output schema and no description of service_id, response, or non-sandbox cost, an agent cannot fully predict the invocation result without consulting the canonical 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 coverage is only 50%; service_id has no description, and the tool description does not explain it. The sandbox sentence merely repeats the schema's own parameter description rather than adding new meaning.

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_service_start as the canonical operation, so an agent can tell it apart from the surrounding vibecloud_*/cloud_* siblings. It stops short of stating the underlying action ('start a service') in its own words, relying on the name/title and the referenced sibling for that.

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 explicitly instructs new integrations to use cloud_service_start ('dùng cloud_service_start cho tích hợp mới'), naming the alternative and the condition that should select it. 'Alias tương thích' conveys the legacy-compatibility context in which this tool would still be used.

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