vrchat_invite

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

With annotations only providing readOnlyHint=false, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds key quirks: users can be usr_ ids or exact display names, and bare instanceIds are rejected because VRChat needs the worldId. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it does not cover auth, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, user formats, and destination requirements. Each sentence earns its place, and the most critical rejection rule is highlighted. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool has 12 parameters with nested objects and an output schema. The description covers the core invite flow and key constraints, but leaves several parameters untranslated. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether you must be in the instance) or error handling. The output schema mitigates return-value gaps, but the overall context for advanced use is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the core parameter relationships: 'here=true', 'location', 'worldId+instanceId', 'user/users', and 'self'. The note about instanceId rejection is valuable. However, advanced parameters (retry, dryRun, continueOnError, message, overwriteMessageSlot) remain unexplained, leaving 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Invite yourself or one/many users to an instance.' It clearly distinguishes this general invite tool from siblings like vrchat_invite_self or vrchat_invite_user by covering both self and multiple users. It also adds details about user identification and destination formats, removing ambiguity.

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 provides clear context on when to use: for inviting self or multiple users to an instance. It explains destination options and the rejected bare instanceId, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this instead of X'. The sibling names imply separate self/user tools, but the description could be more explicit about trade-offs.

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