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. It discloses the public visibility requirement (a behavioral constraint) and implies a write operation ('import'), but doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens on successful import (e.g., where the character appears).

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first states the purpose and context, the second provides parameter guidance and prerequisites. Every word serves a clear purpose, and the most important information (what the tool does) comes first.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the what and prerequisites well, but doesn't describe what happens after import (success behavior, error cases, or where to find the imported character). Given the complexity of importing external data, more context would be helpful.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of valid inputs ('https://www.dndbeyond.com/characters/12345678' or 'just the numeric character ID'), which clarifies the parameter semantics beyond the schema's generic 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 clearly states the specific action ('Import a public D&D Beyond character') and the target ('into the current campaign'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'import_character_file' or 'create_character'. It provides a complete verb+resource+context statement.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (importing from D&D Beyond specifically) and includes an important prerequisite (character must be public). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'import_character_file' for other import sources.

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