DM20 Protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention permissions needed, whether this is irreversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise at just 4 words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. There's zero wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 creation/mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an NPC is in this system, what happens after creation, error conditions, or relationship to other entities. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool 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 the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 NPC' clearly states the action (create) and resource (NPC), but it's quite basic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_character' or 'create_campaign'. It's not tautological with the name, but lacks specificity about what an NPC is in this context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_character' or 'update_character'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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