vrc_decimate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool calculates a ratio and applies a Decimate modifier, and explains the preserve_shape_keys technique ('CATS blend_from_shape... gold standard'). However, it does not mention whether the operation is destructive, modifies in place, or creates a new object, leaving some behaviors ambiguous.

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 relatively concise: a single introductory sentence followed by a clear bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, but the list could be slightly more compact. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose.

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 (4 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the general workflow and parameter meanings. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., mesh type) or limitations (e.g., what 'smart' means algorithmically). The output schema presumably covers return values, so that gap is acceptable. Overall, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning for all 4 parameters. It provides explicit values for target_rank ('excellent', 'good', 'medium', 'poor'), platform ('pc' or 'quest'), mesh_name behavior, and a detailed explanation of preserve_shape_keys. This significantly adds value beyond the schema, though it could include even more detail (e.g., enum lists not fully given).

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 explicitly states it performs 'Smart decimation to reach a target VRChat performance rank', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from the generic 'decimate' sibling by focusing on VRChat rank targets, making its purpose clear and differentiated.

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 implicit usage context by mentioning VRChat performance ranks and including parameter defaults (target_rank, platform), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'decimate'. No 'when not to use' or exclusion criteria are given, so guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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