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 of behavioral disclosure. It explains the conditional behavior based on input (ID removes specific instance, name removes all matches), which is valuable. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, or what happens if no matching effect exists.

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 purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise explanation of parameter behavior in two sentences. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, 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 conditional behavior), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the core functionality and parameter semantics. However, it could be more complete by addressing error cases, permissions, or confirmation of removal success.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the semantic difference between providing an effect ID (exact match, removes specific instance) versus an effect name (removes all with that name), which clarifies usage beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('an active effect from a character'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'apply_effect' and 'remove_item' by focusing on effect removal rather than application or item management.

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 on when to use specific parameter values (effect ID vs. name), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_spell' or 'remove_item', nor does it mention prerequisites such as character existence or effect presence.

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