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 does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it describes the import process ('handles name conflicts via chosen conflict mode'), explains side effects ('regenerates all entity IDs and re-links cross-references'), and mentions the preview option for safe testing. It doesn't cover potential error conditions or performance implications, but provides substantial 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 efficiently structured with three focused sentences: purpose statement, operational details, and usage tip. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool with complex behavior.

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 provides good coverage of what the tool does and how it behaves. It explains the import process, conflict handling, and preview option. However, it doesn't describe the return value or error responses, which would be helpful given the absence of output schema.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description mentions 'preview=true' as an example and implies conflict_mode usage, but adds minimal semantic value beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when 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 specific action ('import a compendium pack'), the target resource ('into the current campaign'), and the scope ('loads a CompendiumPack JSON file and imports its entities'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'import_character_file' and 'import_from_dndbeyond' by specifying it handles campaign-level entity packs rather than character data.

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 for when to use it ('import a compendium pack into the current campaign') and includes a specific usage tip for preview mode. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'validate_pack' for pre-import validation, which would be helpful for sibling differentiation.

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