vrchat_status_set

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden. It adds that the tool writes, requires status or color, and defaults to current user. However, it fails to disclose what happens when userId is provided (set someone else's status?) or any authorization needs. The description is decent but incomplete.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Set your status + description (write)') and then adds constraints. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating parameter explanations). Minimal waste.

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 has 4 parameters, no required fields, and an output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and key constraints. However, it misses explanations for userId and description parameters, and does not clarify return value (partially mitigated by output schema). Overall adequate but with notable gaps.

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 explain parameters. It mentions 'status' and 'color' with enum values (though only color values are listed explicitly) and describes their relationship. It also mentions 'description' in the text. However, userId is completely unexplained, and the roles of each parameter beyond the constraint are vague. Two out of four parameters lack adequate semantic guidance.

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 'Set' and the resource 'your status + description', explicitly marking it as a write operation. It further specifies constraints (requires status or color, agreement if both provided) and defaults to current user, distinguishing it from the related read tool vrchat_status_get.

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 writing status, especially given the sibling read tool (vrchat_status_get). It outlines constraints like requiring status or color and agreement, providing enough context for decision-making. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternative tools beyond the implicit contrast with get.

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