equip_squad_member

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real side effects: one weapon is consumed and the previous non-default weapon is dropped via the native handler, which signals an irreversible mutation. It omits the control-lease requirement, failure behavior when the weapon or member is unavailable, and whether the dropped weapon returns to cargo or is lost.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the side effect second, which is the right ordering. 'Via the native handler' is mild implementation jargon but adds a hint about fidelity to game behavior, so it broadly earns 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 seven-parameter, all-required mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it never explains the acquire_control lease contract, the request_id idempotency role, or what a successful response contains. An agent could construct a call but has little basis for handling failures or sequencing.

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 only 29% — only lease and session_id carry descriptions — so the description needed to compensate and does not. It mentions the cargo/stockpile choice, which the enum already encodes, but says nothing about request_id, squad_id, member_id, or weapon_id semantics such as whether weapon_id must reference an existing inventory entry.

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 and resource ('Equip an existing weapon') and scopes the item source to 'squad cargo or stockpile', which matches the source enum. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names or contrasts a sibling such as refill_squad_member_ammo.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no indication of what alternative to reach for when a weapon is not in cargo or the member is already equipped. The only implied usage is that the member must already exist, which the agent could infer from the name alone.

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