pob_add_item

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is to say what gets changed and how failures behave. It does add real value: raw text is parsed through Item Lua, the item is added, and equipping only happens when a slot is given, gated by IsItemValidForSlot validation. It omits whether an item already in that slot is replaced, which build is affected, and what happens when validation fails — significant gaps for a destructive 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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the core action plus the conditional equip behavior are front-loaded. It is dense with internal jargon (Item Lua, IsItemValidForSlot) that could obscure meaning for an agent without that domain context, but nothing is wasted.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool with two undocumented parameters, the definition leaves out what the caller most needs: which build receives the item, whether an existing slot item is overwritten, and what a success or validation failure looks like. The mechanics of parsing and validation are covered, but the operational picture 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it partially does: 'raw' is understood to be item text in a copyable in-game format, and 'slot' is the optional target equipment slot with validation. However, it never specifies the expected text format, the slot naming convention (e.g. 'Helmet', 'Ring 2'), or why raw allows up to 65536 characters. Useful but incomplete compensation.

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 names a concrete verb chain and resource: recognize item text via Item Lua, add the item, and optionally equip it into a slot. That is far more specific than the name alone and lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like pob_add_skill_group or pob_catalog. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as pob_import_xml (bulk import) or pob_catalog (lookup), and no stated prerequisites such as an active build. The only conditional hint is that supplying 'slot' triggers equipping, which is behavioral rather than usage guidance. An agent must infer the calling context entirely.

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