vntextpatch_insertlocal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds the behavioral detail that output goes to an independent output, implying non-destructive behavior. However, it doesn't disclose error handling, encoding specifics, or file/folder handling nuances beyond the schema.

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 plus a disambiguation note. It is concise, front-loaded with a clear 'JSON→脚本' label, and every word adds value. No wasted content.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a selection hint, but lacks edge-case behavior, usage context, or return value expectations. The schema fills most parameter meaning, but the description could mention file/folder handling or prerequisites for a more complete picture.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the schema's role mapping (translated .json to script) without adding new parameter details. It doesn't explain format, timeout, or optional sjis_ext beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the tool's function: writing translated .json back into script files with an independent output, using 'classic VNTextPatch insertlocal'. It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling vnt_insert, satisfying sibling differentiation.

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 a negative exclusion ('不是 vnt_insert') but no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It implies usage via the JSON→script direction and the 'local' in the name, but lacks explicit scenarios or comparison to alternatives like extractlocal.

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