pob_select_weapon_set

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds useful behavior by noting the build is recalculated after the swap. It does not explain what the destructive aspect actually means (e.g., whether items in the outgoing set are displaced or overwritten) or any error conditions.

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 short sentence with the action and its consequence front-loaded, with no filler. The mention of the ItemsTab button is slightly incidental but adds modest context about how the swap is normally performed.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and a destructive annotation, the description covers what happens and the recalculation side effect. It leaves open the state impact on the other weapon set and whether equipped items are preserved, which an agent would want before calling a destructive tool.

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 single enum parameter is otherwise undocumented. The description compensates meaningfully by mapping the value to weapon set 'I/II', telling the agent that index 1 corresponds to set I and 2 to set II.

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 verb and resource ('Выбрать набор оружия I/II') and adds the side effect of rebuilding the build, so the agent knows exactly what the call does. It does not distinguish itself from related siblings such as pob_equip_item or pob_update_skill_group, which is the only real gap.

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 through the mention of the standard ItemsTab button and the I/II set concept, giving an agent enough context to guess when this applies. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives like pob_equip_item for changing individual gear.

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