record_picks

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 thoroughly explains that picks persist, only new names are appended, duplicates are ignored (idempotent re-sending), order is preserved, and unrecognized or ambiguous names are reported without blocking the rest. These are critical behavioral traits that go beyond the schema and give the agent full transparency into side effects and error handling.

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 three short paragraphs, each with a distinct purpose: the core function, the live-draft context, and the sync/error behavior. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and keeps each sentence informative without fluff. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure is logical and easy to scan.

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 tool with only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers when to use (live draft, since ESPN delays publication), how to use (incremental vs full sync), and what to expect (duplicates ignored, ambiguous names reported). An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly without further clarification.

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 schema has a single 'players' parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the array contains player names, that the order matters (draft order), and that names may be ambiguous or unrecognized and will be reported. While it does not specify the exact name format (e.g., first/last, team abbreviations), it adds meaningful semantics about ordering and error handling, which is more than the bare schema provides.

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 records multiple picks by name in draft order, using a specific verb ('Record'), a resource ('picks'), and a scope ('several at once'). It implicitly distinguishes from the singular sibling record_pick by emphasizing 'several picks at once' and 'in draft order', giving an agent unambiguous understanding of its function.

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 explicit usage context: it is the fast path during a live draft because ESPN does not publish picks, and it explains the incremental sync strategy ('only ever send the picks made since your last call'). It also clarifies that re-sending the entire history is intended for syncing, which informs when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it does not name record_pick directly, the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select the correct tool.

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