equip

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 states the core move action but does not explain what happens when an equipment slot is already occupied, whether the operation can fail, what it does with existing equipment, or how to identify items (names vs IDs). These are meaningful gaps for a side-effecting mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the action, the items involved, and the source and destination slots.

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 of three optional string parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description is serviceable. However, it omits important invocation details such as item identifier semantics, handling of occupied equipment slots, and failure behavior, making it incomplete for an agent trying to call the tool correctly without guessing.

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%, but the description does add meaning by mapping gun, ammo, and armor to item types moved between inventory and equipment slots. It does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions: it never states the expected value format (item name, ID, etc.) or the exact behavior when a parameter is null.

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 states a specific verb and resource: moving gun, ammo, and/or armor from the main inventory into equipment slots. It clearly differentiates this from sibling inventory tools like insert_items or check_inventory because it names the unique destination (equipment slots) and the specific item categories.

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 usage context is implied: the tool should be used when the agent wants to equip items into equipment slots. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, say when not to use it, or describe prerequisites such as the item needing to exist in the main inventory.

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