Gắn tên miền vào ứng dụng

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true. The description adds value beyond them by explaining that a not-yet-active .vn domain can still be attached, that the server completes the operation after profile approval, and that it emits a domain.status_changed webhook — non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, action statement front-loaded, with supporting behavioral and parameter hints following. Reasonably tight; each sentence carries information, though the ID-sourcing hints could be trimmed.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by mentioning the domain.status_changed webhook so the agent knows the completion signal. The main gap is the undocumented sandbox parameter, which neither description nor schema covers.

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 67%; the schema already documents app_id and domain_id with patterns. The description reinforces the ID meanings and their source tools but adds no format/syntax detail beyond the schema, and the sandbox parameter is undocumented in both description and schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Gắn tên miền vào app đã deploy'), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the very similar sibling cloud_app_domain_add, leaving an agent to guess which one to use when both appear in the toolset.

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 prerequisite guidance on how to obtain the IDs ('Dùng cloud_app_list để lấy app_id', 'domain_id ... từ cloud_domain_list') and adds context about the .vn case, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives and never routes away from cloud_app_domain_add.

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