equip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that equipping happens but does not disclose side effects such as swapping/unequipping an existing item, requirements (level, class), error conditions, or whether the action is reversible.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The brevity is not wasteful, though the same terseness contributes to the specification gaps noted elsewhere.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a 0%-documented parameter, the description is too thin. It does not explain parameter format, expected effects, or failure modes.

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%, and the only parameter has the bare title 'Index'. The description adds that the index refers to the inventory ('by inventory index'), which is meaningful, but it omits critical details like valid range, 0- vs 1-based indexing, and how to identify the target item.

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 names a specific verb ('Equip') and resource ('an item'), and scopes it to an inventory index, so an agent can understand the operation without opening the schema. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like 'use' or 'drop', which also act on inventory items.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as 'use' or 'drop'. The usage is only implied by the verb 'Equip'.

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