avatar_load

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral side effects. It only says 'load an avatar' and gives accepted identifiers; it does not mention whether the avatar replaces the current one (which the 'replace' parameter implies), what happens on failure, or how the loaded avatar becomes active (scene vs in-memory). This is a significant transparency gap.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that starts with the action, then specifies types of accepted inputs. No filler, no unnecessary details; it is appropriately sized for a low-complexity tool with only two parameters.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse to be fully usable. The missing meaning of `replace` and unspecified consequence of loading leave an agent guessing. For a simple tool, a short paragraph with these details would be advisable.

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 tool description must compensate. It effectively documents `name_or_path` by enumerating valid aliases and confirming file name/path usage, but the `replace` parameter is entirely left unexplained. The partial contribution raises this from an inherent baseline, yet it falls short of full compensation.

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 action ('load') and the resource ('avatar'), and it gives a concrete list of accepted aliases plus files/paths. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like avatar_list or avatar_measurements by the verb, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with those tools, so a small clarity window remains.

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?

No guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It implies its purpose through naming, but there is no 'use this when...' or 'instead, use...' statement, leaving an agent to infer context without explicit direction.

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