pob_compare_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the build is not modified and that output is a Before/After diff via GetMiscCalculator and CompareStatList, but it introduces an expectedRevision parameter that is absent from the input schema, muddying rather than clarifying behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with little filler. However, referencing internal tool names (GetMiscCalculator, CompareStatList) and an out-of-schema parameter adds noise an agent cannot act on.

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 read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description does explain return semantics (Before/After changes). Still, it leaves the input parameters undocumented and introduces expectedRevision that the schema does not define, so an agent cannot reliably call it without inspecting the schema.

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% across three parameters (raw, slot, itemId), so the description must compensate but largely does not. It only weakly ties 'slot' to the try-on and references an expectedRevision parameter that does not exist in the schema, leaving raw and itemId entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific action: trying on an item in a given slot without altering the build, and names the underlying comparison semantics (Before/After). It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the non-committal 'without changing the build' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from an equip tool.

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 implied rather than stated: 'without changing the build' hints this is a preview before applying, and the final sentence directs the agent to pass comparison.revision as expectedRevision to apply. However, it never names the actual apply sibling (e.g. pob_equip_item) or states when-not to use this tool.

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