Thử webhook email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a synthetic `email.delivered` payload is dispatched and the resulting HTTP response is checked, which is meaningful behavioral context. It omits whether the test is logged, whether it counts against quotas, or how failures surface.

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 short bilingual sentences, with the precondition front-loaded before the action. Nothing is padded, though the second English sentence is largely a restatement of the first rather than new information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the result; 'kiểm tra HTTP response' gestures at it but does not say what is returned (status code, response body, delivery result) or how a failed delivery is reported. For a test/mutation tool that makes a real outbound call, this leaves a moderate gap.

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 50%: `idempotency_key` is documented in the schema, while `webhook_id` has no description. The phrase 'Khi đã có endpoint' loosely implies `webhook_id` must reference an existing endpoint, adding some meaning, but the description never explains the identifier itself or how the two parameters interact on retries.

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 concrete verb and resource: send a sample `email.delivered` event to verify the webhook's HTTP response. That is more specific than the title ('Thử webhook email'). It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like monapay_test_webhook or monapay_test_email, so an agent still has to reason about which test tool applies.

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 đã có endpoint' / 'Use to test webhook delivery' implies a prerequisite (a webhook endpoint must already exist) and a context (validating delivery), which is useful. It names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use guidance, so routing between this and the other test/list webhook tools 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.