Thêm bản ghi DNS

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that - nothing about auth, rate limits, duplicate-record handling, or whether existing records are affected. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds no extra behavioral signal.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and kept to a few short sentences. The trailing 'AI làm trọn' is marketing filler that does not earn its place, but the body is otherwise tight.

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 mutating 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic operation and key field examples but omits conflict/precedence behavior and permission expectations. Adequately minimal but with clear gaps.

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 83%, so the schema already documents the parameters well. The examples (type=A/name=@/data=<IP>, CNAME/www) illustrate how the fields combine, adding marginal value, but domain_id remains undocumented in both places.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource ('Thêm 1 bản ghi DNS' = add a DNS record), which cleanly separates it from the update/delete/list siblings by name alone. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied through examples ('trỏ web ... trỏ www ...'), which show intent but not when to choose this tool over cloud_domain_dns_update or cloud_domain_dns_delete. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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