update_lineup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral details. It mentions time constraints and validation rules but omits critical aspects like whether updates are applied immediately, whether the update replaces or merges with the existing lineup, or what happens if the contest is already locked. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single sentence, very concise. It front-loads the primary action and constraint. However, it references another tool, which slightly reduces self-contained clarity. Still, it is efficient and to the point.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple update operation but lacks context on behavior such as whether the update replaces the entire lineup or modifies individual players, and whether multiple updates are allowed. Given no output schema or annotations, more detail would be needed for full completeness.

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 each parameter is documented. The description adds the note 'Same validation rules as submit_lineup' but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline without extra value.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'lineup', and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'submit_lineup' by noting it's for updating before contest lock. The purpose is 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 specifies the time constraint 'before contest locks' and references 'submit_lineup' for validation rules, providing clear guidance on when and how to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the reference.

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