DM20 Protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (moves items), handles slot conflicts by automatically unequipping existing items, and implies state changes in inventory and equipment slots. It doesn't cover error cases, permissions, or response format, but provides essential operational context.

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 perfectly sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and subsequent sentences add crucial behavioral details without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by explaining the move operation and conflict resolution.

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 mutation nature, 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core operation and conflict behavior but lacks details on permissions (player_id usage), error cases, and return values. For a tool with this complexity, it's good but not fully comprehensive.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Equip', 'Moves') and resources ('item from inventory', 'equipment slot'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'unequip_item' and 'add_item_to_character' by focusing on equipment slot assignment rather than inventory management or removal.

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 through the automatic unequip behavior when a slot is occupied, suggesting when this tool is appropriate. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'unequip_item' or 'add_item_to_character', and doesn't mention prerequisites such as the item being in inventory.

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