sua_doi_tuong

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful behavioral fact ('Goc tinh bang do' – angle in degrees) for the rotation parameter, but says nothing about reversibility, permissions, partial-update behavior when optional args are null, or what happens when 'ten' matches nothing. For an unannotated mutation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one unit clarification. No filler or repetition; it is terse without being padded.

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?

A five-parameter mutation tool with zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. The description never explains whether unset optional fields leave values unchanged, what the target 'ten' must match, or what the call returns. Given the complexity signals, it is under-specified.

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 cryptic Vietnamese property titles (ty_le, vi_tri, xoay_do, ten_moi) are the only structured guidance. The description helpfully maps them to concepts (position, rotation, scale, new name) and supplies the degrees unit for rotation, which the schema lacks. It still omits array formats/lengths for vi_tri, ty_le and xoay_do, so it only partially compensates.

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 ('Doi' = change) plus the resource (a doi tuong) and enumerates the four mutable attributes: position, rotation, scale, name. An agent can immediately tell this is a mutation tool for existing objects, though nothing in the text distinguishes it from siblings like nhan_ban or xoa_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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must the object already exist or be selected?), and no mention of alternatives such as xoa_doi_tuong or nhan_ban. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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