Sửa nhóm Zalo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries a heavier burden. It tells the agent that this is an edit/update operation, but it does not disclose update semantics (partial vs full replacement), permissions, reversibility, effects of omitted fields, or expected response. The Markdown constraint is useful but is more parameter guidance than tool behavior.

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 a single efficient sentence that leads with the core action and packs two actionable constraints without unnecessary words. It is concise while still adding useful context.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain update behavior, what virtual_account_id represents, what the event values control, or what happens after a successful update. An agent could invoke it but would be guessing about several key fields.

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 43%. The tool description adds context for group_id (source) and message_template (no Markdown), but events, is_active, friendly_name, and virtual_account_id receive no meaningful explanation beyond their names and schema types. This is a significant gap for a config-update tool.

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 ('Sửa' = edit) and resource ('cấu hình nhóm' = group configuration) for a Zalo group containing the Gấu Mona bot. This is distinguishable from the create/delete/test/list sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 practical constraints: group_id comes from MONA Account/PMS and message_template must be plain text because Zalo does not parse Markdown. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like monapay_create_zalo_group or monapay_delete_zalo_group.

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