Sửa cấu hình thông báo email

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false. The description still adds valuable context beyond the annotations: that new recipients must be verified before the config becomes active — a behavioral side-effect the schema does not convey. It does not state permission requirements or whether the config is deactivated in the meantime, so it stops short of 5.

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 short sentences, field list front-loaded, and the key constraint (verification) follows. Bilingual duplication adds length without much extra meaning, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 33% schema coverage, the description is workable but thin — no return info, no partial-update semantics, no mention of what happens to unverified recipients or required permissions. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 33%; only config_id and virtual_account_id carry inline descriptions. The description enumerates the mutable fields (name, recipients, events, VA, is_active) in prose, mapping loosely to the schema properties, which is worthwhile, but adds no format/semantic detail (e.g., what VA does). Baseline 3 fits given the low coverage gap not being fully compensated.

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 (Update/Cập nhật) and resource (email config) and enumerates the mutable fields (name, recipients, events, VA, is_active). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like monapay_create_email_config and monapay_delete_email_config.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'update' but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance. The recipient verification note is a prerequisite, not routing guidance. No named alternatives (e.g., use create_email_config instead if the config doesn't exist).

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