Sửa cấu hình thông báo email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the post-update activation caveat about recipient verification, but omits permissions required, whether the update is partial (all five fields are optional) or a full replacement, and what happens to unspecified fields.

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?

Two compact sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the caveat second. The Vietnamese/English mirroring is a deliberate localization choice rather than padding, though it does roughly double the token footprint.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, a mutation tool over six parameters at 33% coverage needs more than it gets. The verification caveat is the strongest addition, but PATCH-vs-PUT semantics, response shape, and authorization expectations 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 coverage is only 33% (only config_id and virtual_account_id carry descriptions), so the description is expected to compensate. It does enumerate the updatable fields, mapping loosely onto name, recipients, events, virtual_account_id, and is_active, but adds no format, enum, or constraint detail (e.g. the TRANSACTION_IN/WEBHOOK_FAILED/VA_CREATED event set or the 10-recipient cap).

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 specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an email config') and enumerates the mutable fields (name, recipients, events, VA, active status), which clearly separates it from siblings like create_email_config, delete_email_config, and list_email_configs. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it lands just below the top tier.

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 provides one meaningful precondition – new recipients must be verified before the config becomes active – which is real usage guidance. However, it never names the relevant sibling tools (monapay_verify_email, monapay_resend_email_verification) or states when to choose update over delete/recreate, leaving the workflow routing implicit.

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