vrc_accessory_auto_align

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the detection and normalization process and mentions scale_mode options. However, it does not explicitly state whether the fix is destructive or reversible, or what happens on failure. Adequate but not highly transparent.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the high-level purpose, followed by a crucial usage hint ('Run this BEFORE...'), then a parameter list. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 that the tool has 4 parameters (none required) and no annotations, the description covers the main use case, parameter explanations, and ordering. It does not address error conditions, edge cases (e.g., missing bone), or prerequisites beyond the sibling. However, the output schema exists to document return values. Mostly complete but missing some edge-case detail.

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%, meaning the JSON schema has no parameter descriptions. The description compensates by explaining each parameter in plain language with examples (e.g., target_bone: "e.g., 'Left foot'"; scale_mode: "'auto' (detect and fix), 'match_armature', 'none'"). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Auto-detect and fix misaligned accessories (shoes, hats, etc.) by comparing their bounding box to the target bone position and normalizing scale/rotation.' It specifies the verb (auto-detect and fix), resource (accessories), and method, and distinguishes from sibling vrc_attach_accessory by giving ordering instruction.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Run this BEFORE vrc_attach_accessory.' It gives clear context but does not state exclusions or alternatives beyond the sibling. No other when-not-to-use info.

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