pob_equip_item

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description usefully clarifies that itemId=0 only unequips and leaves the item in the build list. However, it does not disclose what happens to the item currently occupying the slot when a new one is equipped — the main destructive consequence — nor the revision-guard semantics.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the non-obvious sentinel-value rule. No filler.

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 mutating tool with four params, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves expectedRevision undocumented and does not describe the fate of an item displaced from the slot. The core equip/unequip semantics are covered, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 adds real meaning for itemId (0 = unequip, not remove from build) and implies the raw/saved duality, but expectedRevision is entirely undefined and the raw-vs-itemId precedence is unstated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Надеть ... itemId в slot') plus the native-PoB mechanism and the special itemId=0 unequip case. It implies the tool operates on items already tracked in the build (raw or saved itemId), which differentiates it from pob_add_item, though the sibling is never named.

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 two input modes (raw string vs saved itemId) and the itemId=0 unequip path are described, which is usable guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs pob_add_item or pob_compare_item, no note on whether raw and itemId are mutually exclusive, and no mention of when expectedRevision matters.

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