vrchat_request_invite

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the need for user permission, restrictions about private instances, and the return value ('Returns the Notification of type requestInvite that was sent'). It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions, but covers essential operational constraints.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences: purpose statement, two important usage guidelines, and return value information. Every sentence adds essential value with zero wasted content, and critical information ('IMPORTANT') is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good contextual coverage: purpose, usage constraints, and return value. It doesn't explain error cases or authentication requirements, but covers the essential operational context given the tool's complexity.

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 100%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('Request an invite from a user') and resource ('user'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'vrchat_send_friend_request' or 'vrchat_join_group'. It precisely defines the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Always obtain explicit permission from the user before sending an invite request' and 'invite requests cannot be sent to users in private instances'. This clearly defines when to use (with permission, not in private instances) and includes important exclusions.

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