vrc_fix_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists operations but does not disclose irreversible changes, destructive nature, or side effects like loss of shape keys or modifiers. This is insufficient for a fix tool.

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: two short sentences plus a parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and actions, with no unnecessary words.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, many siblings), the description covers basic operations but omits usage guidance, output details, and safety information. It leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds basic parameter explanations and defaults. However, it lacks deeper semantics (e.g., what 'apply_transforms' does to objects or vertices). Adequate but not thorough.

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: 'One-click model fix for VRChat (similar to CATS "Fix Model")' and lists specific actions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vrc_validate or vrc_decimate.

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 implies usage before export but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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