DM20 Protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: the outcomes of approval (changes applied to character's JSON data) and rejection (sheet regenerated from server data, overwriting edits). This covers mutation effects and data handling, though it lacks details on permissions or error cases.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by two concise sentences explaining outcomes. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying behavior without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and 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 tool's complexity (a mutation with significant side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the two possible outcomes. However, it could be more complete by addressing error handling, permissions, or what 'pending player edits' entails, leaving minor gaps.

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 both parameters ('character_name' and 'approve'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Approve or reject pending player edits from a character sheet.' It specifies the verb ('approve or reject'), resource ('pending player edits'), and scope ('character sheet'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'update_character' or 'check_sheet_changes'.

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 by mentioning 'pending player edits,' suggesting it should be used after changes are detected. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_character' or 'check_sheet_changes,' nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions.

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