vibecloud_subscription_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavioral disclosure: upgrades are prorated, downgrades apply next period, and cancellation requires auto_renew=false combined with cancel_action=hourly|stop. This goes well beyond the schema by exposing billing timing and cancellation semantics. It falls short of 5 because it omits reversibility, permission requirements, and what happens after approval (response/confirmation).

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 text is compact in word count but structurally messy: it is a stream of slash-separated bilingual fragments, and roughly a third of it is redundant ('Alias tương thích của cloud_subscription_update' repeats 'Compatibility alias', and the English closing restates the Vietnamese). The core facts are front-loaded, but the wasteful duplication and lack of clean structure prevent a higher score.

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 billing mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical business rules (proration, downgrade timing, cancel modes) but leaves gaps: what the tool returns after approval, how the approval flow works, and the exact semantics of cancel_action=hourly vs stop. The alias relationship is fully clarified, which is essential given the many paired cloud_*/vibecloud_* siblings.

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. It maps plan_code to 'Đổi gói' (change plan), period to 'chu kỳ' (cycle), and auto_renew/cancel_action to the cancel workflow. However, it never explains the meaning of the enum values: what 'hourly' vs 'stop' actually do, or the month/year tradeoffs, and service_id is only implicitly the subscription identifier.

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 clear verb+resource: it updates a subscription (change plan/period/renewal) or cancels renewal, with concrete mechanics like 'auto_renew=false, cancel_action=hourly|stop'. It also identifies itself as a compatibility alias of cloud_subscription_update, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like vibecloud_subscription_list. It misses a clean 5 because the bilingual text is somewhat jumbled and the final '/ Update or cancel renewal.' merely restates what the Vietnamese already said.

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 phrase 'sau khi đọc subscription và giá, ước tính rồi được duyệt' (after reading subscription and prices, estimate then get approval) implies a workflow: read subscription/price data first, then update. Naming cloud_subscription_update as the canonical sibling gives the agent routing context. However, there are no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use statements or exclusions, and no guidance on choosing this alias over its canonical counterpart.

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