Tạo nhiều hộp agent

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lowered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the quota constraint ('trong quota gói' – within package quota) and, importantly, partial-failure semantics ('lỗi từng hộp không hủy cả batch' – a per-inbox error does not abort the batch). That partial-failure disclosure is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with when-to-use and then the batch/failure semantics. The English half re-states what the Vietnamese half already says ('tạo hàng loạt' ≈ 'create many at once'), which is mild redundancy, but overall it is efficient with no wasted sentences.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose, batch scope, quota limits, and partial-failure behavior. However, with 0% schema parameter coverage it leaves the individual parameters (mode/domain/forward_to) unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently populate the call from the description alone. Complete on behavior, incomplete on parameters.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does not. The 4 parameters (mode enum of redirect/store/ai, domain, required agent_ids array, forward_to) are never explained: no meaning for mode values, no guidance on domain vs. the batch, no note on forward_to. The description only gestures at 'multiple addresses', leaving the parameter layer undocumented.

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 and resource ('tạo nhiều địa chỉ' / 'create many inboxes') and the batch scope ('hàng loạt' / 'many at once'), which distinguishes it from the single-inbox sibling mail_inbox_create by implication. It gives a concrete example ('mỗi nhân viên một hộp' – one inbox per employee) so the agent understands the batch intent. The sibling itself is not named, so it stops 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 clear when-to-use context: 'when you need to create multiple addresses at once (e.g., one per employee)'. This routes the agent toward batch usage rather than repeated single creates. It offers no explicit when-not or named alternative (mail_inbox_create), so it lacks the exclusion guidance a 5 would require.

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