vrchat_send_friend_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks critical details: whether this requires authentication, if there are rate limits, if the request can be canceled, what happens on duplicate requests, or what the response looks like (success/failure). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action.

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 complexity (a mutation with social implications), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It should cover authentication needs, error conditions, response format, and usage context to be minimally adequate. Currently, it only states the basic action without supporting details.

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 description does not mention the 'userId' parameter at all, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. However, with only one required parameter, the agent can infer it's the target user, giving a baseline score. The description adds no value beyond what's obvious from the tool name and schema structure.

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 ('send a friend request') and target ('to another user'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'vrchat_get_friends_list' (read) or 'vrchat_join_group' (different resource). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'vrchat_request_invite', which might be a similar social interaction but for instances rather than friendships.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to know the user ID), exclusions (e.g., cannot send to existing friends), or related tools like 'vrchat_get_friends_list' to check current friends first. Usage is implied only by the action itself.

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