gan_vat_lieu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether assigning replaces an existing material, whether the object must already exist, what permissions or state are required, or what happens on failure, leaving a mutation tool's side effects opaque.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded, but that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient density. It is concise without being informative.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites, replacement semantics, and error behavior, all of which the agent must know before calling.

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 does map both required parameters conceptually — 'vật liệu' to ten_vat_lieu and 'đối tượng' to ten_doi_tuong — but adds nothing about whether those names must match existing entities exactly or about naming conventions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource pair: assign ('gán') a material ('vật liệu') onto an object ('đối tượng'), and the mention of 'đã tạo' (already created) hints this consumes an existing material rather than making one. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like tao_vat_lieu or sua_doi_tuong.

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?

'Đã tạo' (already created) weakly implies the material must exist beforehand, which is a prerequisite hint. Beyond that there is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it, and no reference to any alternative tool, so the agent must infer usage entirely.

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