DM20 Protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'regenerate' implies a write operation, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is destructive (e.g., overwrites customizations), requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core action.

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 is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details about behavioral implications (destructiveness, permissions, response format) that would help an agent understand the full impact of invocation.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't waste space explaining parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and usage.

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 action ('regenerate all character sheets') and resource ('for the current campaign'), providing a specific purpose. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on bulk regeneration rather than individual sheet operations like 'update_character' or 'validate_character_rules', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 the tool ('after bulk changes or to ensure all sheets are up to date'), which helps differentiate it from incremental updates. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternative tools for partial updates.

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