DM20 Protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing critical behavioral outcomes: stabilization at 3 successes (HP set to 1, resets) and death at 3 failures. It doesn't mention permission requirements (though player_id parameter hints at this), rate limits, or error conditions, but covers the core mutation behavior adequately.

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?

Perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: states the action, explains tracking mechanics, and discloses the two critical outcomes. No wasted words, and the most important information (stabilization/death conditions) is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness by explaining the core behavioral outcomes. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens on intermediate saves (1-2 successes/failures) or clarifying if this tool can be used when character isn't at 0 HP, but covers the essential mechanics well.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without providing extra value.

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 states the specific action ('Record a death saving throw result') and resource (death saving throw tracking system). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing exclusively on death save mechanics, unlike tools for items, spells, events, or general character updates.

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 usage context through the stabilization/death mechanics explanation, suggesting it should be used when tracking death save outcomes in D&D-style gameplay. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (like general character updates) or mention prerequisites like character being at 0 HP.

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