Tạo cấu hình thông báo email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: creation triggers per-recipient 6-digit verification codes and requires a subsequent verify step. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, whether the config is inactive until verified, or error behavior, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 content is front-loaded and contains no filler beyond the core purpose and verification workflow. The only inefficiency is the bilingual duplication, which repeats the same two sentences in Vietnamese and English.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential creation purpose and the critical post-creation verification workflow. It leaves out secondary details (authorization, failure handling, config state before verification), so it is strong but not fully 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 descriptions already document all four parameters at 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that each recipient address receives its own code, which changes how the recipients parameter must be handled (collect one code per address).

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 and resource ('Tạo kênh thông báo email' / 'Create an email notification config') and clearly differentiates from siblings like update, delete, and list email configs. An agent can identify this as the creation step without ambiguity.

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 explicit post-creation instructions: MONA Pay sends a 6-digit code to each address, the agent must ask the user for each code and then call monapay_verify_email, never guessing. This names the follow-up tool and action sequence, though it does not explicitly distinguish when to create versus update an existing config.

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