Đổi nameserver (NS) của tên miền

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the change is fully automated ("AI làm hoàn toàn"), but says nothing about propagation delay, whether existing DNS records go inactive when switching away from MONA, or any verification prerequisite — meaningful gaps for a delegation change.

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 short sentences with the core action and the minimum-NS constraint front-loaded; nothing is padded. The closing "AI làm hoàn toàn" is more marketing than actionable information, a minor waste.

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, the description covers the core action and gives example values, which is helpful. It stops short of what an agent would want before calling: whether the domain must be verified first, what happens to existing records, and how long changes take to propagate.

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 50%: ns_list is documented in the schema while domain_id carries only a regex pattern and no description. The description reinforces the ≥2 minimum but adds no format or source guidance for domain_id, so it neither compensates for the gap nor falls below the baseline for a partially documented two-parameter tool.

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 ("Đổi NS cho tên miền") and gives concrete NS examples (ns1.mona.host, ns2.mona.host), so an agent immediately knows this sets domain nameserver delegation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the DNS-record siblings (cloud_domain_dns_add/update/delete), which an agent could plausibly confuse with NS changes.

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 states the ≥2 NS constraint and gives two usage scenarios (keep DNS at MONA vs. move to Cloudflare/another provider), which implies when to reach for it. However, it names no sibling alternative and gives no explicit when-not condition, so routing between this and the cloud_domain_dns_* tools is left to inference.

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