Tạo API key MONA Mail

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

The annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, not destructive), but the description adds the single most important behavioral fact: the secret is returned only once, plus the handling instruction to store it in .env as MONAMAIL_API_KEY rather than print it. One caveat: an idempotency_key parameter is offered while idempotentHint=false, though that is plausibly opt-in idempotency rather than a true contradiction.

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 core guidance is useful and front-loaded, but the whole message is duplicated across Vietnamese and English, roughly doubling length for the same content. Every sentence earns its place individually; the duplication does not.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value story (one-time secret) and the storage convention, which is exactly what an agent needs. Only the parameter-level detail for name/idempotency_key is thin.

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 only 33%, so the description would need to compensate. It names the mode values (live/test) but only restates what the enum already shows, and says nothing about the name parameter's constraints or the idempotency_key beyond the short schema note. Baseline 3 is the honest ceiling.

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 ('create an app key' / 'tạo key live hoặc test') and scopes it to SDK integration, which clearly distinguishes it from mail_api_keys_list and mail_api_key_revoke. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a concrete trigger: when integrating the SDK into an app, and clarifies the live-vs-test mode choice. There is no explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing (e.g. 'use mail_api_keys_list to inspect existing keys'), which keeps it below 5.

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