Cấu hình hộp agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not say whether omitted fields are left unchanged (partial vs full update), what happens to the inbox when active=false, or what the call returns. The mode text largely restates the schema.

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 content is front-loaded and reasonably short, but the English clause is essentially a restatement of the Vietnamese clause, so roughly half the text is redundant rather than additive. Acceptable for a bilingual surface, but not tight.

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 five-parameter config tool with no output schema and annotations covering read/write safety, the description tells an agent everything it needs to know about which knobs exist and what the mode values mean. The remaining gap is the partial-update contract, which is not stated.

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 60%, and the description compensates by naming four of the five parameters in prose (mode with all three values, forward_to as the forwarding address, Telegram chat for notifications, and enable/disable for active). Only inbox_id is undocumented, and it is the obvious required key.

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 (configure 'Cấu hình'/set) and resource (inbox) and enumerates exactly what can be changed: mode, forward_to, Telegram notify chat, and active/inactive. It does not explicitly name any sibling (e.g. mail_inbox_create or mail_inbox_get) to differentiate itself, so it lands 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?

"Khi cần đặt cách hộp xử lý thư" (when you need to set how the inbox handles mail) gives a real usage trigger and the mode enum explains each option's purpose. However, there is no when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling tools (create vs get vs delete) that an agent would need to route between.

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