vrchat_boop

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

Annotations indicate it's not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), and description confirms it 'sends' boops. However, no additional behavioral details such as whether boops are one-time, have limits, or require authentication beyond what annotations give.

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?

Single sentence makes it concise, but lacks structure such as separating usage from parameter details. It could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Given 8 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what a boop is, the effect, or what the tool returns. With minimal annotations, the description should provide much more context.

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?

Description mentions only 'user' and 'users' implicitly via 'one or many users'. With 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds negligible value. Parameters like 'retry', 'dryRun', 'emojiId' are completely unexplained.

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 'Send' and resource 'boops', and specifies scope ('one or many users'). It distinguishes from siblings by being the only boop-related tool, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar 'send' tools like 'invite'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'invite' or 'message' tools. No prerequisites, permissions, or context provided.

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