Công cụ MONA app env set

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

Adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the operation replaces the ENTIRE env (so the caller must resend every key to keep), secrets are not logged, and a follow-up deploy is needed. This is non-trivial disclosure not derivable from the readOnly/idempotent hints. There is a mild tension with destructiveHint=false, since a full overwrite can drop unlisted variables, but it reads as overwrite rather than deletion.

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 bilingual duplication inflates the text, and the 'App từ git đã live... 2–3 phút' timing sentence is tangential to a set-env operation. The actionable content (full replacement, no secret logging, deploy after) is present but not front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: replace-all semantics, approval gating, secret handling, and the required follow-up call. Only the app_id parameter and error behavior remain unaddressed.

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%, and the description never names app_id or sandbox. It does clarify the semantics of `env` as a complete replacement map ('gửi đầy đủ map cần giữ'), which is valuable, but the remaining parameters go undocumented.

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 clear verb+resource ('Set app environment') and identifies itself as a compatibility alias of cloud_app_env_set, which helps an agent map it to the canonical sibling. The purpose is discernible, though it is diluted by unrelated deploy-timing prose.

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?

Gives one concrete workflow cue: 'Gọi cloud_app_deploy sau đó để áp dụng' (call deploy afterward to apply), and implies approval is required. It does not compare against cloud_app_env_set or explain when to prefer the alias versus the canonical tool, leaving usage largely inferred.

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