vrchat_write

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint: false), the description adds only that it calls write operations. It fails to disclose behavioral traits like side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. For a generic wrapper that performs mutations, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence with front-loaded purpose and immediate referral to companion tools. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, output schema present), the description minimally covers core functionality and directs to discovery tools. However, it omits safety/behavioral context, making it adequate but not complete for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, but descriptions like 'OpenAPI request body' or 'OpenAPI params' are generic. The description adds no additional meaning, only pointing to other tools for discovery. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete but low-quality schema descriptions.

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 it calls POST/PUT/PATCH operations by operationId, distinguishing it from sibling tools like vrchat_read (GET) and vrchat_delete (DELETE). The verb 'call' indicates execution, and the resource is specified as 'available generated VRChat operation'.

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 explicitly tells users to use vrchat_operations and vrchat_operation_details to discover parameters and body, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly exclude other tools, but sibling names (vrchat_read, vrchat_delete) imply the read/delete alternatives.

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