Công cụ MONA app env set

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

With annotations already declaring readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=true and destructive=false, the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the operation replaces the ENTIRE env (omitted keys are dropped, hence 'send the full map to keep'), it does not log secrets, and a separate deploy call is needed to apply. These are useful behavioral facts annotations don't convey.

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 leads with git-app deployment timing that is irrelevant to an env-set tool, and the whole message is duplicated in Vietnamese and English, roughly doubling length for the agent. The genuinely useful guidance (full map, no secret logging, deploy next) is buried rather than front-loaded.

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 set operation whose safety profile is covered by annotations and which has no output schema, the description conveys the key workflow (call deploy after) and the secret/full-map caveats. It falls short on parameter documentation, notably leaving 'app_id' undescribed at low schema coverage.

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 coverage is only 33% (only 'sandbox' is documented). The description adds some meaning for 'env' — send the complete map to keep and don't log secrets — but says nothing about 'app_id'. It partially compensates for the coverage gap without fully covering the undocumented parameters.

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 core action is stated — 'Thay toàn bộ env' / 'Set app environment' for a given app — which is a specific verb+resource. However, the description opens with deployment-timing content that belongs to a different operation, diluting clarity about what THIS tool actually does.

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 concrete sequencing: replace the env after approval, and 'Gọi cloud_app_deploy sau đó để áp dụng' — call cloud_app_deploy afterwards to apply. It also states the condition to 'send the complete map to keep.' No explicit when-not or alternative comparison, but the workflow context is clear.

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