Công cụ MONA affiliate claim

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety/mutation profile. The description adds the time-window constraint ('thời hạn cho phép') and scoping to the 'current account', which is useful beyond the annotations, but says nothing about what happens on a duplicate or failed claim.

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 short and the core action is front-loaded, but the Vietnamese and English lines are verbatim duplicates, so the bilingual repetition consumes space without adding distinct information.

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 output schema and a 0%-documented parameter, the description is thin. It does not explain the effect of claiming, what happens on an invalid/expired code, or any post-claim state, leaving an agent without enough to predict outcomes.

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% and the description does not compensate. It implies the single parameter is a referral code ('mã giới thiệu'), but omits the length bounds (4–16 chars), format, or validation behavior that the schema leaves undocumented.

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 ('Claim a referral code for the current account'), so the action is clear. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like cloud_affiliate_link or vibecloud_affiliate_claim, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'trong thời hạn cho phép' (within the allowed period) hints at a timing constraint but is not an explicit usage rule.

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