make_transfer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a transfer (mutation) but does not disclose any constraints: whether the transfer is permanent, whether it respects budget rules, whether it checks for injuries/suspensions, whether it requires any prerequisites (like login or team ownership). It also doesn't mention that team_id is auto-detected (which is in the params anyway). The description does not reveal what happens on failure or edge cases. Given no annotations, this is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action ('Transfer one player out and another in'). The parameter details follow in a clear list. No extraneous content. It could be slightly more compact but is efficiently structured.

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 complexity (a roster mutation with financial implications), the description is too thin. It lacks critical context like whether it validates against budget, whether it considers gameweek deadlines, whether it reflects immediately or after a deadline, what happens if the player isn't in the squad. The description doesn't specify what the output schema contains either (though that's structured), but for a consequential action, an agent needs to know side effects. With no annotations and no such context, the completeness is low.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain sell and buy as names of players ('Name of a player currently in your squad to sell' and 'Name of the player to buy'). This adds semantic meaning. However, it doesn't clarify any validation or constraints (e.g., must be a valid player name, must be a registered FPL player). team_id is explained as optional with auto-detection. It covers the essential parameters adequately but not deeply, so a 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 states a clear verb-resource pair ('Transfer one player out and another in') and specifies the scope (by name, in your squad). It distinguishes from siblings like set_captain, substitute, and play_chip, which handle different roster actions. 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 clearly indicates the tool is for player transfers, which distinguishes it from other roster actions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like transfer_preview or suggest_transfers for pre-checking. But the context is clear enough for most agents, especially with the sibling list. Could be stronger with an explicit 'use transfer_preview to simulate' note.

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