Tạo API key (client_secret)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the secret is shown only once ('hiện 1 lần'), which is critical for the agent. However, it does not mention whether existing keys remain valid, whether generation has side effects, or any security/rate-limit implications; the English portion omits the one-time display detail entirely.

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 short and front-loaded, with the key action and one-time display behavior placed first. The bilingual repetition is mostly redundant, and the crucial 'shown once' detail appears only in Vietnamese, which slightly harms structure and accessibility.

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 tool with no output schema, the description partially explains the result: a new client_secret is generated, displayed once, and used in a header. However, it lacks explicit return/format details, parameter semantics, and any indication of whether previous secrets are affected, so the information is adequate but incomplete.

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?

The input schema has one optional string parameter 'name' with default 'mcp' and no schema description (0% coverage). The description never mentions this parameter, so the agent cannot know what 'name' represents or whether it affects the generated key. The optional/default nature lowers the risk, but semantic meaning is entirely absent.

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 verb and resource: generate a new client_secret, and it explains the intended use via the X-Client-Secret header. This makes the tool's purpose understandable and distinct in practical terms, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling monapay_rotate_key.

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?

No usage guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as monapay_rotate_key or mail_api_key_create. The description implies it is for obtaining a new client_secret but gives no conditions, exclusions, or context about when generation is appropriate.

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