vrc_setup_gestures

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses creation of shape keys and Animator Controller, lists standard gestures, and explains behavior for empty mapping and mesh_name. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing data) or system requirements, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 well-structured with a one-line purpose, a bullet list of gestures, and parameter details. It is concise but not overly terse, earning its space. A minor improvement could be removing the gesture list if it's standard knowledge.

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 specific use case (VRChat avatar gestures) and 2 parameters, the description covers core functionality. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing armature, mesh) or what the output schema contains (though an output schema exists but is not provided). This leaves some contextual gaps.

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 2 parameters with zero description coverage. The description adds significant value: it explains mesh_name is the face mesh with auto-detection, and mapping is a JSON object with a concrete example and default behavior (creates template if empty). This provides clear semantics beyond the 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 sets up gesture-driven blendshapes, creates shape keys for each hand gesture, and generates Animator Controller configuration. It distinguishes from siblings like vrc_setup_visemes and vrc_generate_animator by specifying the focus on hand gestures and explicit setup steps.

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 for setting up gesture blendshapes in VRChat avatars but does not explicitly state when to use or when to avoid, nor does it mention alternatives. It lacks explicit usage context or exclusion conditions.

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