Công cụ MONA app domain add

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/open-world profile is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: the API returns CNAME instructions and the agent should wait for DNS propagation before verifying HTTPS. It does not state permissions or reversibility, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 opening sentence about git app live timing and deploy durations is off-topic for a domain-attach tool and pushes the actual purpose into second position, harming front-loading. The Vietnamese and English lines restate the same points, adding redundancy rather than value.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by noting the CNAME instructions returned by the API and the DNS-then-HTTPS sequence. However, with two required parameters undocumented and a low schema coverage, the definition is only minimally complete for correct invocation.

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 only 33% (only sandbox carries a description). The description hints that host is a domain the human already owns and that the target is an app, but it does not explain the host format, app_id semantics, or how sandbox interacts with real infrastructure, leaving two required parameters under-documented in both schema and prose.

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: attach ('Thêm') an existing custom domain to a git-hosted app, and the English line 'Attach an existing custom domain' removes ambiguity. It partially distinguishes itself from the many cloud_domain_* siblings by scoping to an existing domain owned by the human. Sibling differentiation is present but relies on the reader parsing the mixed-language text.

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 gives explicit when-not and alternatives: if the human does not yet have a domain, use cloud_domain_search/cloud_domain_reserve/cloud_domain_buy then cloud_domain_attach. It also notes .vn/.com can be bought with VND in-session, which is exactly the routing an agent needs to pick the correct tool.

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