Sửa nhóm Zalo

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, giving the agent a safety profile. The description adds domain-specific context (bot Gấu Mona requirement, plain-text template restriction) beyond the annotations, but doesn't cover merge-vs-replace semantics of a partial update, which is what an agent actually needs.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and target, then packs in two key constraints (id source, plain-text template). Efficient with no filler, though the two constraints are compressed into one clause and could be separated for scanability.

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 7-param mutation tool with 43% schema coverage, no output schema, and sibling create/delete tools, the description covers the two highest-risk details (id source, template constraint). It still omits required-field reminders, update semantics, and how to obtain the id in practice, which an agent needs before calling.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by stating where group_id comes from and that message_template must be plain text. However, other schema-undocumented parameters (events, is_active, friendly_name, virtual_account_id) get no semantic help, so coverage remains incomplete.

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?

Clear verb 'Sửa' (update) plus the specific resource 'cấu hình nhóm Zalo' with the Mona bot constraint. The sibling set contains create/delete/list/test_zalo_group, but the description doesn't explicitly name which sibling this replaces to distinguish the update scope.

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 description implies this is for modifying an existing group config and points to the id source (MONA Account/PMS), which nudges the agent toward the correct flow. It never states when to use update vs. create_zalo_group or how to find the required id, leaving prerequisites implicit.

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