vroid_export_vrm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it excels. It discloses the side effects (opens modals, uses Wine save dialog), the time cost (30s to minutes), the failure behavior (raises with a diagnostic screenshot path), and the recommended retry strategy (read the screenshot, beware of leftover modals). This is unusually rich and actionable, covering the obvious 'what happens to the system' and 'what to expect' questions an agent would have.

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 longer than average, but it front-loads the core action ('Walk the entire Export-as-VRM flow and write a .vrm file') and structures the rest as a concise step chain, a prerequisite, a timing note, and a failure/retry note. Each sentence earns its place; there is no filler. It could arguably be trimmed slightly (e.g., the detailed UI path), but the richness contributes to transparency, so a 4 is fair.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description explicitly states what it returns (the written path and its size) and how it signals failure (a diagnostic screenshot path), which complements the schema. It also covers prerequisites, duration, and the retry hazard. For a complex multi-step GUI automation tool, this is fully complete; an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and handle outcomes.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters already have explanations (e.g., path is a Linux path translated to Z:\, avatar_name is required for the Export button to activate). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, with full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra value here.

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 walks the entire 'Export as VRM' flow and writes a .vrm file, with a verb (walk/export), a specific resource (VRM file), and an explicit step sequence. It distinguishes itself from low-level siblings like vroid_click or vroid_type by being a composite workflow, and from vroid_save_project (which saves a project, not exports a VRM). The first sentence alone conveys the exact purpose.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: 'Must be started from the EDITOR screen with a model loaded.' It also implies when to use it (when you need a .vrm export) and orients the user by narrating the UI steps. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or describe when NOT to use it, but given the sibling set (most are atomic actions), the usage context is sufficient. A minor gap is the lack of explicit 'use this instead of manual steps' guidance.

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