DM20 Protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create a new location' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether creation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns an ID). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it integrates with the broader system (e.g., fantasy RPG context hinted by sibling tools). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between fields like 'location_type' and 'population'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Create a new location' clearly states the action (create) and resource (location), but it's vague about what constitutes a location in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_campaign' or 'create_character'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the domain (e.g., fantasy world-building).

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or relationships with sibling tools (e.g., 'get_location' for retrieval, 'list_locations' for listing). It leaves the agent to infer usage context entirely.

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