Xoá nhóm Zalo

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the specific object being deleted (the Zalo group notification configuration), but does not describe consequences like permanence, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. For a simple delete-by-ID operation, this is appropriately sized and wastes no words.

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 one-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile (destructive, idempotent, openWorld), the description states what is deleted but omits consequence details such as irreversibility and effect on related data. This leaves clear gaps that an agent must fill by inference.

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%: the single id parameter is fully documented as a UUIDv6 returned by MONA Pay. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Xoá) and resource (cấu hình thông báo nhóm Zalo), making clear it deletes a notification configuration rather than the Zalo group itself. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling operations like update, create, list, or test.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as monapay_update_zalo_group or monapay_list_zalo_groups. The agent must infer routing from the tool name and annotations.

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