Equip / Hold Item

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

Annotations provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds the return format (message string) and a specific error condition (item not found in inventory). However, it doesn't disclose what happens to the previously equipped item or whether the item is consumed/removed from inventory, which could be relevant for the agent. This adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides return/error info. Every word is useful, with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the main action, making it easy to scan.

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 simple equip action, the description covers the core functionality, return type, and a likely error. The schema provides destination enum/default, and annotations clarify the safety profile. While it could mention side effects like item replacement or consumption, the lack of an output schema and the tool's simplicity make this reasonably complete. A small gap, but not a major omission.

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. It clarifies that 'item_name' refers to an item in inventory and 'destination' refers to hand or armor slots, but it doesn't explicitly mention the parameter names or the enum/default values. The description adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but could be more explicit about how the two parameters map to the action.

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 uses a specific verb 'Equips' and clearly identifies the resource: item from inventory to the bot's hand or an armor slot. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'use_held_item' or 'move_item_slot' by indicating it's about changing what the bot holds/wears, not using or moving items.

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 implies the tool is used when you want to equip an item (to hand or armor), but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'move_item_slot' or 'give_item'. No exclusion criteria or alternate conditions are provided, so usage context is only implied.

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