vrchat_invite_self

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is a write operation. The description adds 'low-risk write', which characterizes the side effects but does not detail what exactly happens (e.g., joins instance, creates a record). No destructive hint is provided, but the description offers minimal additional transparency beyond the annotation.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key action and risk level. However, it could benefit from additional structured details (e.g., parameter relationships) without being verbose, potentially reaching 5.

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 tool's 3 parameters, lack of required fields, and no output schema visible, the description is too sparse to ensure correct invocation. It does not specify how to combine parameters or the consequences of different combinations. The presence of an output schema (not shown) mitigates this slightly, but the description remains 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?

The input schema defines 3 parameters (worldId, location, instanceId) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the purpose, format, or any dependencies among these parameters. For a tool with no parameter documentation, this is a critical gap.

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 'invite yourself' and the resource 'instance'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling invite tools (e.g., vrchat_invite, vrchat_invite_user) by specifying self-invitation. The parenthetical 'low-risk write' further clarifies its safety profile.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. The 'low-risk write' hint is indirect but insufficient for clear usage direction.

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