Tạo API key (client_secret)

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

Annotations already cover safety and idempotency, but the description adds the important behavioral fact that the secret is displayed only once ('hiện 1 lần'). It does not state whether existing secrets remain valid or are invalidated, but the show-once detail is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is short. The bilingual repetition is somewhat redundant and the English half omits the important 'shown once' and header details.

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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the show-once behavior, and the header use. It still leaves the parameter unexplained and does not clarify how this differs from rotating an existing key.

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 0% and the description never mentions the single 'name' parameter or its default. The description does not compensate for the missing schema semantics, though the parameter is optional and has a default.

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 ('Sinh/Generate') and resource ('client_secret'), and adds that it is new and shown once. It does not differentiate from the sibling monapay_rotate_key, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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?

It says the resulting secret is used with the X-Client-Secret header, but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to monapay_rotate_key. The implied usage is tautological (generate a secret when you need a secret).

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