Tạo API key (client_secret)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one critical trait: the client_secret is shown only once ('hiện 1 lần'). However, it does not disclose whether the previous secret is invalidated, any permission requirements, or the exact response shape, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 two short sentences (Vietnamese and English) with no fluff. The key facts—generation, one-time display, and header usage—are front-loaded and every word contributes.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core generation and one-time display behavior, but it leaves the 'name' parameter undocumented and does not describe the response. The English half also omits the 'show once' caveat, creating minor gaps an agent must handle.

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 parameter, 'name', with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. Since schema coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate, but it provides no semantic guidance for the parameter.

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 ('Sinh' / 'generate') and a specific resource ('client_secret') and states its purpose for the X-Client-Secret header. None of the 16 sibling tools generate a client secret, so it is clearly differentiated.

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 usage context: it generates a client_secret intended for the X-Client-Secret header. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the sibling tools are all about different concerns (QR, webhooks, transactions), so the intended use is reasonably clear.

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