Sửa cấu hình thông báo email

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a key behavior: new recipients must be verified before the config becomes active. However, it does not disclose whether unverified recipients are rejected or saved in a pending state, whether the recipients array replaces or appends to the existing list, or what immediate mutation side effects occur.

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 most important information: what can be updated and the critical verification requirement. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but acceptable and adds clarity for both Vietnamese and English users.

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 mutation tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the verification workflow or next steps (e.g., verifying a recipient), the effect of setting is_active while recipients are unverified, or what a successful update returns. An agent could invoke it but would lack enough context to handle failed or partially verified updates safely.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add semantic grouping by listing the updatable field categories (name, recipients, events, VA, active status). However, it does not clarify config_id targeting, replace-versus-append behavior for recipients, or the effect of virtual_account_id null beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cập nhật'/'Update') with a specific resource ('email config') and enumerates the updatable fields: name, recipients, events, VA, and active status. This clearly distinguishes it from create/delete/list siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage context is implied by the 'update' verb and by the sibling tool set, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. The verification caveat is a precondition rather than a routing hint, so an agent must infer that creation or deletion tools should be used for other life-cycle operations.

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