vrchat_invite

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only. The description adds behavioral details: users can be usr_ IDs or exact display names, and location can be specified in multiple ways (here, full location, worldId+instanceId, bare instanceId). However, it omits error handling, permissions, or rate limits.

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?

Two succinct sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states core purpose, the second adds key operational details. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 complex tool with 12 parameters and nested objects, the description covers the core invite functionality and location modes but fails to explain advanced parameters like retry, dryRun, and message. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but behavioral completeness is lacking.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds semantics for 'here', 'location', 'worldId', 'instanceId', and user identification. However, 7 of 12 parameters (retry, dryRun, message, etc.) remain undocumented, leaving significant gaps.

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 tool invites 'yourself or one/many users to an instance', providing a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vrchat_invite_self and vrchat_invite_user by covering both self and multi-user scenarios.

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 usage for inviting multiple users and supports various location formats, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over sibling invite tools (e.g., vrchat_invite_user). No 'use when' or 'alternatives' are provided.

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