vrc_attach_accessory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions key behaviors (parenting, hierarchy, optional toggle) but omits important details: side effects, required permissions, error conditions, and whether the operation is destructive or reversible. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose but becomes a dense bullet list of parameters. It is somewhat lengthy for the content, though each sentence serves a purpose. Could be streamlined by grouping related parameters or using a more compact format.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., need an armature and accessory), and does not specify when to use among sibling VRC tools.

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 does so for all 7 parameters, providing clarity on defaults and format (e.g., 'rotation_correction' with examples 'X90', 'Z-90'). While some descriptions are concise, they add value beyond the schema titles.

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: 'Attach an accessory object to a bone on the avatar armature.' It uses a specific verb (attach) and resource (accessory to bone), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing VRCFury's armature link and detailing the parameters.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The only hint is 'Similar to VRCFury's armature link,' but this does not provide explicit usage criteria.

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