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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden; the parenthetical that occupied slots are freed by the client is genuinely useful, disclosing that equipping may displace an already-worn item. It does not state what happens on an invalid item_id, whether the item must be in inventory, or what is returned, but the key mutation side effect is covered.

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?

Two short sentences, with the action and its side effect front-loaded before the parameter note. Nothing is padded and the parenthetical is doing real work rather than restating the name.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the replacement behavior and the ambiguous slot argument, but says nothing about item_id semantics, failure modes, or the resulting state. It is adequate but leaves gaps an agent would hit when calling it.

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 description must compensate, and it does explain the non-obvious parameter: slot is a single slot letter ('буква слота') needed only when multiple slots are possible. item_id, the one required parameter, gets no explanation of format or source at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 verb 'Надеть' (equip) plus the object 'предмет' (item) states the action concretely and separates it from siblings such as game_unequip and game_use_item. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is for wearing an item that is presumably in inventory, and the clause 'if there are several options' hints when the slot argument is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use versus game_use_item, game_move_item, or game_unequip, and no stated preconditions.

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