DM20 Protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it generates a new token and QR code while invalidating the old one, indicating a mutation with security implications. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by usage guidelines in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (mutation with security impact), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behavior, but lacks details on output format (e.g., what the new token/QR code looks like) and error handling, which could be important for an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the parameter's purpose in context ('to refresh token for'), but it doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states (e.g., format examples or constraints).

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 ('generate', 'invalidate') and resources ('token', 'QR code', 'player'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on token refresh, unlike other party-related tools (e.g., party_kick_player, party_knowledge) that handle different actions.

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 explicitly provides usage guidelines with 'Use when' followed by three specific scenarios: lost QR code, security concern, or after being kicked and readmitted. This clearly indicates when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, though no explicit alternatives are named.

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