set_ir

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the write operation, explains that the list is complete rather than a delta, that an empty list clears IR, and clarifies Sleeper's roster/IR subset modeling. It does not cover confirmation behavior, permissions, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds relevant caveats. The three short paragraphs are mostly informative, though the NOTE section is somewhat detailed for the core task.

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 write tool with no annotations and four parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description covers behavioral context well but is incomplete on parameter semantics and usage decisions. The output schema exists, so return values are adequately handled elsewhere.

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 partially explains the main list semantics but refers to it as `reserve` rather than the actual `player_names` parameter, and it omits `confirm`, `league_id_`, and `roster_id_` entirely, leaving three of four parameters unexplained.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Set which players occupy your IR slots.' It is clearly distinct from siblings like set_lineup or set_keepers, and the leading 'WRITE' signals the operation class.

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?

It does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_lineup. It only notes that injury eligibility is a league setting and points to league_info, which is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance.

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