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 basic outcome (moves item to inventory, clears slot) but omits critical details like permission requirements (implied by 'player_id' parameter), whether the action is reversible, error conditions, or side effects on character stats.

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 clarifying second sentence. Both sentences earn their place by adding value—no wasted words or redundant information.

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 minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or return values. Given the complexity (state change with 3 parameters), it should provide more behavioral context to be fully complete.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain slot constraints or character identification nuances). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('unequip an item'), the resource ('equipment slot'), and the outcome ('moves the equipped item back to the character's inventory and clears the slot'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'equip_item' by describing the reverse operation.

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 implies usage when moving an item from equipment to inventory, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'remove_item' for deleting items). It mentions a sibling tool 'equip_item' by context but doesn't provide direct comparison or exclusion criteria.

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