Công cụ MONA affiliate claim

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful context that the code is attached to the current account and must be claimed 'within the allowed period' (thời hạn cho phép), hinting at a time-window constraint, but does not explain failure modes or what happens to an existing referral.

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 core content is short, but the bilingual repetition (Vietnamese alias line, then Vietnamese action line, then English action line) means the same information is stated two to three times. Front-loading the alias relationship is reasonable, but the redundancy costs efficiency.

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 alias tool with annotations covering the mutation safety profile, the description is minimally adequate: it says what is claimed and by which account. It omits the code's origin/format and the outcome of a successful or failed claim, leaving some gaps an agent would want filled.

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?

The single 'code' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema only supplies type and length bounds (4-16). The description identifies it semantically as a referral code (mã giới thiệu) to attach, but adds no format, source, or validity detail beyond that minimal gloss.

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+resource ('Claim a referral code for the current account') and explicitly identifies itself as the compatibility alias of cloud_affiliate_claim, which is the key differentiator from its sibling. It is clear what the tool does; only the bilingual duplication dilutes it slightly.

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?

Calling it an 'alias tương thích / compatibility alias' of cloud_affiliate_claim implicitly tells the agent it is interchangeable with that tool, which is useful routing context. However, it never states when to prefer this prefixed variant over the unprefixed sibling, nor any prerequisites, so guidance is only implied.

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