vrchat_profile_update

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds the behavioral note 'Status is preserved automatically,' which is helpful. However, it omits other important traits like whether the update is a partial or full replacement, permission requirements, or side effects like overwriting unmentioned fields.

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 under 20 words, front-loading the action and key fields. It's not over-detailed but remains clear. Could benefit from structured bullets or more context for completeness, but it achieves high efficiency for its length.

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 6 optional parameters and an output schema (not shown). The description lists the updatable fields and mentions automatic status preservation, but lacks critical context like whether the tool does a partial update (implied by optional params), typical response format, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 lists the field names but provides no additional meaning—no syntax, constraints, examples, or default behaviors. For example, 'booping' is ambiguous (maps to isBoopingEnabled), and no explanation of what the boolean means. This is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter usage without prior domain knowledge.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: updating profile fields. It lists the specific fields (bio, bioLinks, pronouns, userIcon, booping, content filters), making the action unambiguous. No sibling tool duplicates this function, so differentiation is effortless.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as vrchat_status_set for status-specific changes. The description lacks 'when not to use' or 'prefer alternative' instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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