Công cụ MONA app domain add

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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: git apps are already live, first app host takes ~2-3 minutes vs 10-20 seconds for later deploys, the API returns CNAME instructions, and DNS must be awaited before HTTPS is checked. It does not describe failure modes or rollback, but it goes well past the structured hints.

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 alias statement is front-loaded, which is good, but every point is expressed twice (Vietnamese and English) and the deploy-timing detail is wedged between the routing guidance, making the text denser than needed. Nothing is grossly irrelevant, but it is not efficient.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow (attach existing domain, CNAME returned, wait for DNS) and routes buying to siblings, which is adequate. However it leaves the required host/app_id parameters unexplained and never states what the response contains beyond 'CNAME instructions', so it is only minimally complete.

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 'sandbox' is documented — and the description does not explain 'host' or 'app_id' beyond the vague phrase 'app host'. With low coverage the description was expected to compensate for the two required parameters and does not, so it adds little meaning over the schema.

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 clear verb+resource ('Attach an existing custom domain') and identifies itself as the compatibility alias of cloud_app_domain_add, which lets an agent place it among the domain siblings. It is slightly muddied by the bilingual duplication and the interleaved deploy-timing text, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly routes the agent: if the human has no domain yet, use cloud_domain_search/cloud_domain_reserve/cloud_domain_buy followed by cloud_domain_attach, and it notes buying .vn/.com in-session with VND. That is concrete when-to-use-which guidance, though the boundary between this tool and cloud_domain_attach is stated only in passing.

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