equip_jewel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses that the jewel only applies in allocated sockets and that jewels bypass the equip legality check. However, it does not mention whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or what happens if the socket is already occupied. The description provides some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 starts with the main action and then explains parameters and behavioral notes. It is mostly concise, but the last sentence about mana-stacker power is somewhat tangential and could be considered extra detail. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the core usage and parameter details, but lacks information on return values (despite an output schema existing) and error conditions. It also does not mention reversibility or side effects. For a simple tool with two parameters, it provides adequate but not comprehensive context.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. It clarifies that 'raw' is 'raw PoB item text' and for 'socket', it specifies it is a socket ID from 'list_jewel_sockets' and defaults to the first allocated empty socket. The schema only provides types and required status, so the description is essential.

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 'socket a jewel' into a 'passive-tree jewel socket', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'equip_item' (which equips normal items) and 'list_jewel_sockets' (which lists sockets).

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 explains when to use the optional 'socket' parameter and references 'list_jewel_sockets' for obtaining socket IDs. It provides context on allocated sockets and notes that jewels are not covered by the equip legality check, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it directly to alternatives like 'equip_item'.

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