Equip an item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions failure when the item is absent and the default slot, but it omits critical side effects: what happens to the item already in the target slot? Does it swap back to inventory or get destroyed? This is essential for an agent to predict outcomes safely.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and includes key constraints (default slot, failure condition). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the mutating nature and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the fate of a replaced item in the target slot, which is a critical unknown. It also doesn't describe the return value or success/failure indicators, though no output schema exists. The minimal behavioral info helps but is insufficient for safe agent use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'first matching' to clarify item behavior, but it largely repeats the schema's default slot info (which already states default main_hand). No significant extra parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action: 'Move the first matching stack from the player's inventory into a slot' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like drop_item (removes) and swap_hands (swaps between hands) by specifying inventory-to-slot movement and default main hand. The failure condition is also mentioned.

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 gives clear context: equips an item, defaults to main hand, and fails if the item isn't present. This implies when to use it, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions such as 'use swap_hands to swap hands.' The context is clear enough for basic usage.

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