Thêm domain gửi email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns DNS records and notes that the Cloudflare token is not stored, but it does not describe side effects, whether the domain registration is persistent, how long DNS propagation takes, or whether verification is required afterward.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it repeats the same information in Vietnamese and English ('Trả record DNS' / 'get DNS records'). Bilingual duplication adds length without adding new semantic content, so it is not as tightly written as it could be.

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, the description should explain what the DNS records look like, what the agent should do with them, and whether a verification step is needed. It provides the key output type (DNS records) and the Cloudflare alternative, but omits follow-up verification context and any mention of retry/idempotency behavior, leaving moderate gaps.

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 50%: idempotency_key is documented in the schema, but domain has no schema description. The description adds some meaning by clarifying that domain refers to a sender domain for the app, but it does not specify format rules, whether it must be a root domain or subdomain, or how the idempotency_key interacts with the registration process.

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 tool registers a sender domain and returns DNS records, using a specific verb and resource ('register a sender domain', 'get DNS records'). It also distinguishes itself from the Cloudflare sibling tool by naming mail_domain_cloudflare, so an agent can tell the purpose apart.

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?

The description gives an explicit when-to-use context ('when sending by the app's domain') and names an alternative: call mail_domain_cloudflare if the user uses Cloudflare. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer mail_domain_verify or exclude other non-Cloudflare cases, so the guidance is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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