vrchat_invite_user

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

The description indicates a write operation (invite), aligning with the annotation (readOnlyHint false). However, it omits behavioral details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the invitation is interactive, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise sentence, but it is under-specified and fails to convey essential information. It is not an example of efficient conciseness as it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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?

With four parameters, no schema descriptions, and no parameter explanations, the description is completely inadequate. The agent lacks necessary context to invoke the tool correctly, especially given the existence of multiple similar invitation tools.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of the four parameters (userId, location, instanceId, messageSlot). The agent cannot infer their purpose or required format from the description.

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 (invite) and target (user to an instance). However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like vrchat_invite or vrchat_invite_user_to_me, which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vrchat_invite or vrchat_group_invite. The agent is left without context for tool selection.

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