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. It states the action is 'Delete,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, permission requirements, effects on related data (e.g., items, spells), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 that front-loads the core action. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., clarifying the parameter's purpose upfront). It earns a high score for brevity and clarity within its limited scope.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., confirmation, side effects), error cases, and output expectations. Given the complexity of deletion and the absence of structured safety hints, more context is needed to guide safe and correct usage.

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%, with the parameter 'name_or_id' documented in the schema as 'Character name, ID, or player name.' The description repeats this exactly without adding further meaning (e.g., examples, precedence rules, or format details). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('character from the current campaign'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_campaign' by specifying the target resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar deletion operations on other resources beyond the name.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a character to exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'remove_item' or 'remove_spell' that might handle character components. Usage is implied only by the tool name.

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