Tạo cấu hình thông báo email

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

Annotations only tell us this is a non-idempotent, open-world write; the description adds the substantive behavioral detail that creation triggers per-address verification codes and that verification is a required follow-up step via monapay_verify_email. That multi-step side effect is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Only two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the critical verification steps. The content is duplicated in Vietnamese and English, which is intentional for bilingual audiences but does double the text length.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential lifecycle (create then verify per address). It stops short of stating what state the config is in before verification completes or what happens if a code is wrong/expired, which an agent might need.

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 100%, including the TRANSACTION_IN event invariant and the 1-10 recipient bound, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (name, events, recipients, virtual_account_id) beyond what the schema already documents.

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 email notification config' / 'Tạo kênh thông báo email'), which cleanly separates it from siblings monapay_update_email_config, monapay_delete_email_config, and monapay_list_email_configs. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 explicit post-creation flow: MONA Pay sends a 6-digit code to each address, the agent must ask the user for each code and call monapay_verify_email. It also states a clear prohibition ('never guess a code'). It does not explicitly contrast create vs update for existing configs, but the context is unambiguous.

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