entity-use-item-on

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., item must be equipped), potential effects, failure cases, or whether the item is consumed, leaving significant behavioral unknowns.

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, compact sentence that includes illustrative examples without verbosity. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's function, making it highly efficient.

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 low complexity and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context for a simple action tool, but it lacks explicit guidance on when this tool is preferred over similar sibling tools like entity-interact. Missing behavioral specifics also reduce completeness slightly.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. The examples in the description add mild illustrative value but do not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Use held item on entity' plus concrete examples ('shears on sheep, dye on wolf'), making the action and target clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like attack-entity or entity-interact by emphasizing the item-based interaction.

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 implies when to use the tool by mentioning held items and examples, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives such as entity-interact or attack-entity. The usage context is understandable but not fully explicit.

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