unequip_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Unequip' implies a mutation (removing an equipped item), but the description doesn't specify what happens after unequipping (e.g., item goes to inventory, effects are removed), whether it requires specific permissions, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise ('Unequip an item.') with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it borders on under-specification, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the brevity.

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 complexity (a mutation tool affecting character state), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving critical gaps for the agent to infer.

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%, meaning none of the three parameters (characterId, itemId, sessionId) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what they represent, their format, or why sessionId is optional. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Unequip an item' clearly states the verb ('unequip') and resource ('an item'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what system or context this applies to (e.g., character equipment system), nor does it distinguish from the sibling tool 'equip_item' beyond the obvious opposite action. This makes it somewhat vague compared to what a 4 or 5 would require.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the item must be equipped first), related tools like 'equip_item', or any context-specific rules. This leaves the agent with minimal direction beyond the tool name.

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