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 of behavioral disclosure but offers nothing beyond the basic action. It doesn't mention whether this is a write operation (implied by 'Create'), what permissions are required, whether the quest becomes immediately active, what happens on failure, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically insufficient.

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 maximally concise at just three words with no wasted space. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. While severely under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured—it simply lacks necessary content.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'quest' represents in this system, what happens after creation, how it relates to other entities (campaigns, characters), or what the expected outcome is. The agent must rely entirely on the parameter schema with no contextual guidance.

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?

The description provides no parameter information whatsoever, but the schema has 100% description coverage with clear documentation for all 6 parameters. Since the schema does all the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description adds zero value beyond what's already in the structured schema.

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 quest' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('quest'), but fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_campaign', 'create_character', or 'create_location' that follow the same pattern. No additional purpose details are provided.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'update_quest' or 'list_quests'. The agent receives no help in determining when this specific creation tool is appropriate.

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