Mark an item as worn/not worn

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key side-effect (setting worn=true clears consumable), but omits other relevant behaviors such as idempotency, the effect of setting worn=false, or any permission requirements.

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 concise sentence that provides a specific behavioral fact, but it omits the primary purpose and parameter context, making it under-specified as a standalone description. It is not bloated, but it does not fully earn its place.

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 simple setter with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum state what the tool does and explain how parameters relate. It only mentions the mutual exclusivity side-effect, leaving the core function to be inferred from the title and tool name.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It adds meaning only for the 'worn' parameter by explaining its effect, but categoryId and itemId are left completely unexplained, leaving their roles ambiguous beyond their names.

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 implies the tool sets the worn flag ('setting worn=true') and uniquely distinguishes from sibling tools like set_item_consumable by explaining the mutual exclusivity. However, the primary action is not stated explicitly, relying on the title 'Mark an item as worn/not worn' to complete the purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or alternative tool mentions are included. The only context is a constraint about the worn/consumable interaction, which does not help an agent decide between this and similar setters.

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