Nhả chỗ tên miền đã giữ

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: the precondition that only un-funded reservations can be released, and that the operation is impossible once money has arrived. It does not describe the response or auth flow, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with zero waste: the action and its scope come first, then the negative condition and the alternative tool. Every clause earns its place and the routing information is 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 2-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the decision context (unpaid vs paid) and the alternative route. The only gap is that the conditional auth requirement for claim_token lives in the schema rather than the description, but that is a minor omission.

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 only 50%: claim_token carries its own description ('Bắt buộc khi chưa login') while reservation_id has none. The description adds no parameter-level meaning — it never mentions reservation_id, its 24-hex format, or the conditional auth requirement for claim_token — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource in 'Huỷ reservation chưa nhận tiền' (cancel an unpaid reservation), which an agent can distinguish from sibling operations. It also explicitly names the sibling to use for the other case (cloud_domain_claim), so no schema opening is required to tell them apart.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('người dùng đổi ý / chọn tên khác' – user changed mind or picked another name) and when-not ('Đã có tiền vào thì không huỷ được'), with the alternative named directly (use cloud_domain_claim). Nothing 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.