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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates quests, implying mutation, but doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, or side effects (e.g., if completing objectives triggers other events). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with a single sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Update quest status or complete objectives'). There is zero wasted text, no redundancy, and it efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, return values, or operational constraints. For a tool that modifies game state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (title, status, completed_objective) with descriptions and enums. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'status' and 'objectives' generally, but doesn't provide additional context like parameter interactions (e.g., if both status and completed_objective can be set simultaneously). 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('update quest status or complete objectives'), identifying the resource ('quest') and the actions it performs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_quest' by focusing on modification rather than creation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_character' or 'update_game_state'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., quest must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot update non-existent quests), or relationships with sibling tools like 'list_quests' for reference or 'create_quest' for initial setup. Usage is implied but not articulated.

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