Tạo API key MONA Mail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: the key 'chỉ trả một lần' (returned only once) — the most safety-critical trait for a credential tool — plus storage guidance (write to .env as MONAMAIL_API_KEY) and a security instruction not to print the key in chat. This goes well beyond a bare 'create key' statement, though it omits details like whether old keys remain valid.

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 description is compact — two short sentences — and front-loaded with the usage trigger. The bilingual portions carry distinct content (Vietnamese adds the .env and no-print-in-chat details; English summarizes the action), with only minor duplication and no filler.

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 simple 3-param, no-nested-object tool, it covers purpose, trigger, and the critical one-time-secret behavior. The main gap is response shape: with no output schema, the agent is only told the key is returned once, not what fields to expect, and error behavior is unmentioned.

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% (just idempotency_key), so the description must compensate. It does map the `mode` parameter via 'tạo key live hoặc test,' but the required `name` parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description — a genuine gap that the enum-only mode field only partially offsets.

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 clearly states the action with a specific verb and resource: 'tạo key live hoặc test' / 'Use to create an app key.' The create action distinguishes it from sibling tools like mail_api_keys_list and mail_api_key_revoke, though those alternatives are never named explicitly, which keeps it a step below a 5.

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?

'Khi tích hợp SDK vào app' ('When integrating SDK into app') provides an explicit trigger condition, and the live/test distinction clarifies the two modes this tool covers. It gives clear context for when to invoke it but does not state exclusions or point to alternatives for listing/revoking keys.

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