Nối nhóm Zalo

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral constraint — Zalo does not parse Markdown, so template must be plain text — but says nothing about failure modes, permission/auth needs, or what creation returns.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the core action before the format caveat. No waste, though the group_id digit range is redundantly echoed from the schema.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema; the description covers the action, id source, and one template constraint, but leaves events, is_active, and virtual_account_id behavior to the schema and doesn't describe outcomes. Adequate but with visible gaps for a 6-param creation tool.

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 83% so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new meaning beyond the schema by warning that message_template must be plain text (no Markdown), a constraint absent from the schema description. The group_id format note largely repeats the schema's pattern/description.

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: connecting ('Nối') a Zalo group to the Gấu Mona bot, with the group_id source (MONA Account/PMS) named. This clearly distinguishes it from list/update/delete/test siblings by intent, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Provides a prerequisite (group_id must come from MONA Account/PMS), which implies when the tool is usable, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs monapay_update_zalo_group or monapay_test_zalo_group, and no when-not guidance.

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