unity_publish_avatar

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the attempt-fallback strategy (CLI vs GUI) and prerequisites. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., project state changes, file creation) or authentication details beyond 'logged-in session'.

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 concise with two clear sections: tool behavior and parameter list. It avoids fluff. Some minor redundancy (e.g., 'Publish avatar to VRChat' could be merged with the following sentence), but otherwise efficient.

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 and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers key aspects: purpose, prerequisites, fallback behavior, and all parameters. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool, though more detail on side effects would enhance completeness.

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?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema (0% coverage) by listing each parameter with its purpose, default values, and possible values (e.g., release_status: private/public). This compensates for the schema's lack of 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 the tool publishes an avatar to VRChat, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like unity_build_avatar or vrc_export_fbx by focusing on the final publish step. Prerequisites and fallback behavior further clarify its unique role.

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 specifies prerequisites (VRC SDK and logged-in session) and outlines the publish flow (CLI first, fallback to GUI instructions). While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use this tool.

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