vrchat_instance_link_event

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by disclosing that no notification is sent, which is a meaningful behavioral side-effect. However, it does not mention permission requirements, idempotency, or what happens to a previously linked event, so transparency is partial.

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?

A single sentence that puts the core action first and includes the important 'without notifying' qualifier. No filler; every word contributes to selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

The description and schema together cover the four required parameters and an output schema exists, but terms like 'allowlisted' and 'bare instance' are left unexplained and there is no guidance on preconditions or conflict behavior. It is adequate for a simple linking operation but not richly contextual.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter; the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The schema descriptions are terse but present, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action (Link), a specific resource (allowlisted group instance), and a target (its event), plus the non-notification qualifier. This clearly distinguishes it from the many event/instance sibling tools like vrchat_instance_create or vrchat_group_event_get.

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 use case—linking an existing allowlisted instance to a calendar event—and flags the no-notification behavior, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over create/update tools or states exclusions. An agent must infer the alternatives from sibling names.

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