Tạo hộp thư agent

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context: omitting domain yields an immediate agent.monamail.vn address while a branded address requires a verified domain. It omits a notable trait – repeated calls create additional inboxes (idempotentHint=false) – which is left implicit.

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 definition is short and front-loads the when-to-use condition before the domain guidance, so the most actionable content comes first. The bilingual duplication adds redundancy, but no sentence is wasted.

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 low-complexity, 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the domain tradeoff, and the agent-facing purpose. It still leaves the required agent_id unexplained and does not indicate what a successful call returns (e.g., the created address), so it is adequate but not 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does explain the optional 'domain' parameter well (omit for default agent.monamail.vn, pass a verified domain for a branded address), which is the key operational decision. However, it says nothing about the required 'agent_id' parameter, so it only partially compensates 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('tạo hộp' / create an inbox) and scopes it to an AI agent that can 'read and reply' from it, which is more precise than the bare name. It does not name or contrast with siblings like mail_inbox_list or mail_inbox_update, so it stays at 4 rather than 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?

It gives a clear trigger condition ('Khi cần một địa chỉ email cho agent trực'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right call. It offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives (e.g., reusing an existing inbox), so it does not reach 5.

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