vrchat_friend_request

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, which is consistent with the description. However, the description does not disclose behavioral details such as rate limits, duplicate request handling, or authorization requirements beyond what is implied.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that contain no unnecessary information. It is front-loaded, stating the core action immediately.

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 the complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema), the description is too minimal. It omits details on retry behavior, dry-run mode, error continuation, and output format, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 description only clarifies that the 'user' and 'users' parameters accept usr_ ids or display names, but it does not explain the 'retry', 'dryRun', or 'continueOnError' parameters. With 0% schema coverage, the description provides insufficient guidance.

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 action 'Send friend requests' to 'one or many users', specifying that users can be 'usr_ ids or exact display names'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like vrchat_invite or vrchat_boop, which involve different actions.

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 implies the tool is for sending friend requests, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., vs. vrchat_invite for instance invites), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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