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 an excellent job disclosing behavioral consequences: it details the three-step effect (disconnects WebSocket, revokes token, deactivates in registry) and the rejoin requirement. This goes beyond the basic 'kick' action to explain system-level impacts.

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?

Perfectly front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by consequential details in a logical flow. Every sentence earns its place by explaining what happens after the kick. No wasted words while maintaining complete clarity.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong behavioral context about the irreversible effects. It could be more complete by mentioning error conditions or confirming successful kick, but it covers the essential consequences well given the tool's complexity.

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 one parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (player_name as 'Player name or character ID to kick'), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Kick') and target ('a player from the Party Mode session'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'stop_party_mode' (ends entire session) or 'remove_item' (different resource). It provides a precise verb+resource combination with clear scope.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for Party Mode sessions, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must be in Party Mode), exclusions, or what happens if the player isn't in the session. The context is implied but not explicit.

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