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 quantity-based removal logic (partial vs. full removal), which is useful, but fails to address critical aspects like permission requirements (implied by the 'player_id' parameter), error conditions, or whether the action is reversible. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise and well-structured, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and quantity logic. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 4 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic operation but omits details on permissions, error handling, and return values. However, the high schema coverage partially compensates, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by clarifying the 'quantity' behavior (default removal logic), but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema specifies. This 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('item from a character's inventory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_item_to_character' or 'unequip_item'. It precisely defines the action without being tautological.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'unequip_item' or 'remove_effect', nor does it mention prerequisites or contextual constraints. It lacks explicit usage instructions beyond the basic operation.

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