Thiết lập hồ sơ trang thanh toán

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true and destructive=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the redirect signing secret is returned only once, a one-time-value warning an agent cannot derive from the schema or annotations. It stops short of describing permissions or response behavior, but the secret disclosure is a real contribution.

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 in the first clause and the content is compact. The bilingual Vietnamese/English duplication doubles the surface length, but each half is tight and no sentence is filler.

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?

This is a high-complexity mutation tool with 15 largely undocumented parameters and no output schema, so the description carries a heavy burden. It conveys purpose, the one-time secret, and a handful of field concepts, but omits the bulk of parameter meaning, auth/permission requirements, and any return expectations.

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?

With 15 parameters and only 7% schema description coverage, the description must carry the semantic load, and it does so only partially. It conceptually names shop name, identity, and default receiving account, but leaves the majority of the 15 parameters (locale, hotline, va_prefix, terminal_id, accent_color, show_mona_badge, etc.) with no explanation anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb (create/update) and resource (hosted-checkout payment profile), plus enumerates the conceptual fields it manages: shop name, identity, and default receiving account. This distinguishes it from the read-only sibling monapay_get_payment_profile implicitly via the create/update verb, though that sibling is never named 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?

The phrase 'trước khi tạo checkout' (before creating checkout) supplies a genuine when-to-use context, sequencing this call ahead of monapay_create_checkout. However, no alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites (e.g. how this relates to get_payment_profile) are stated, leaving usage largely implied.

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