espnfantasy_league_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the auth requirement ('works without a key; ESPN_FANTASY_COOKIE unlocks more') and specifies the return structure, which are not present in annotations. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting any hint.

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 structured into three parts: purpose, return format, and example/auth. It is front-loaded with the outcome and does not repeat schema details. Slightly verbose with the full return type declaration, but each section adds value and there is no 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?

For a read-only settings tool with no output schema, the description provides the return structure, an example, and auth details. It lacks explanations of each returned field (e.g., what 'status' means), but given the simplicity of the operation and high schema coverage, the provided info is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% as every parameter has a description (e.g., game enum, view 'Leave as-is', leagueId and seasonId explained). The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond an example that shows typical values. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'League rules:' and explicitly enumerates the settings categories (name, size, scoring items, roster slots, schedule/playoff format, waiver + keeper + trade settings). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like espnfantasy_league (general league info) and espnfantasy_rosters. The verb/resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 an example ('Scoring + roster rules for a league') which implies a use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like espnfantasy_league or espnfantasy_teams. No explicit 'use when' or 'not for' guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer from examples.

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