Cập nhật thông tin chủ thể đăng ký tên miền

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe repeated writes. The description adds valuable context: the save-and-reuse behavior across domains, the no-fabrication rule, and the conditional field requirements for .vn personal vs organizational. It doesn't describe error handling or what happens on partial data, but with annotations covering safety, this is strong.

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 is front-loaded with the core action, then provides usage rules. It's dense but each sentence serves a purpose. Slightly lengthy but appropriately detailed for a 14-parameter tool with complex conditional requirements.

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?

Given 14 parameters, complex conditional logic (.vn personal vs organization), and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: what to collect, when to ask, and save-reuse semantics. It doesn't explain what the response contains or error scenarios, but for a setter tool with annotations, this is largely complete.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The description adds semantic value by grouping fields into required-in-session (fullname, email, phone, address) and conditional sets for .vn personal (CCCD, DOB, gender) and organizational (org_name, tax_code, representative). This goes beyond the schema's per-field docs by explaining the conditional logic, but doesn't add format details beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource — lưu (save/store) thông tin chủ thể (registrant information) cho đăng ký tên miền (domain registration). It distinguishes from cloud_domain_registrant_get by describing a write operation and the data collection workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly say it's updating/setting vs creating, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: must ask user for required fields in-session, notes the difference between .vn personal vs organizational requirements, states it's saved once and reused for multiple domains, and explicitly forbids fabricating data with instruction to ask for missing fields. This is very thorough usage guidance.

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