play_chip

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 mentions the action of activating or canceling, which implies a state change, but does not disclose any side effects (e.g., whether activating one chip deactivates others), prerequisites (e.g., must be a valid gameweek), or response format. This is a gap for a state-changing 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, with the core action in the first sentence. The parameter details are efficiently given in the args block. No wasted words; though the ASCII aesthetics could be improved, it's still well-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 tool's simplicity (2 params, one required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks behavioral details like whether chips are mutually exclusive or if there are any restrictions (e.g., certain chips only allowed in certain gameweeks), which an agent might need to know for correct usage.

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 explains the 'chip' parameter by listing allowed values and aliases, which adds meaning beyond the schema's generic string type. For 'team_id', it says 'Optional; detected from your account if omitted', which is helpful. However, it doesn't provide detailed semantics beyond that, but with 2 parameters and 0% coverage, this is a baseline 3.

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 activates or cancels a chip, which is a specific action on a resource (chip). It lists the possible chip values, distinguishing it from siblings that handle transfers or captain changes. However, the phrasing 'Activate a chip, or cancel the active one' is a bit terse but still comprehensible, so not a perfect 5.

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 implicitly indicates when to use it: when you need to play a chip or cancel one. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, such as set_captain for captain changes)Skip, but the list of siblings suggests it is the only chip-related tool, so usage is inferred.

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