equip_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Equip' indicates a state change, the description does not clarify side effects such as whether the currently equipped item is replaced, whether the item is removed from inventory, or whether equipping can fail. This is a significant gap for a state-mutating tool.

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, succinct sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the core action. There is no unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, yet the description explains only the basic action. It omits important context such as what happens after equipping, whether the item must be in the player's inventory, and how the destination parameter affects the outcome. For a state-changing tool with two parameters, this is incomplete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage, with itemName described as 'Name of the item to equip' and destination as 'Where to equip the item' with an enum and default. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema alone is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Equip an item from inventory' uses a precise verb ('Equip') and resource ('item from inventory'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like use_item, drop_item, and craft_item. The action is unambiguous and specific to equipping rather than other item interactions.

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 such as use_item or place_block. It does not mention any preconditions (e.g., item must be in inventory) or when equipping is preferred over other actions. The intended use case is only weakly implied by the name and description.

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