Tạo cấu hình thông báo email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does this well. It discloses that the tool triggers a 6-digit verification code to every recipient and requires a separate verification step. The explicit warning 'never guess a code' is a valuable behavioral safeguard that an agent would otherwise not know.

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: the first phrase states the purpose, and the rest explains the required follow-up workflow. The bilingual version is still short, with no filler or redundant elaboration. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, side effects, and the necessary next step of calling monapay_verify_email. It does not describe the shape of the create response or explicitly state whether the config is inactive until verification, which would be marginally useful. Overall, the agent has enough context to call the tool and proceed correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating that each recipient address independently receives a 6-digit code and must be verified. This is not inferable from the recipients property description and helps the agent understand how multiple values are processed. It does not add detail about events or virtual_account_id, but the schema already covers those adequately.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Tạo kênh thông báo email' / 'Create an email notification config'. It clearly identifies this as a creation operation for an email notification channel, distinguishing it from list, update, delete, and verify siblings. The follow-up verification instruction makes the tool's role even more specific.

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 clear workflow guidance: after creation, a 6-digit code is sent to each recipient, the user must be asked for the code, and the agent must call monapay_verify_email rather than guessing. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over monapay_notification_register or other create-type siblings, but the named follow-up and clear purpose make the use case fairly obvious.

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