set_keepers

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden and does so: mutation semantics, the complete-list contract, the max_keepers cap, the refusal condition during an active draft, and an explicit disclaimer that it only reports known timing rather than asserting a mechanism. That last note is unusually honest behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the capitalized WRITE marker, then the critical complete-list rule. Slightly verbose with the timing caveat sentence, but every sentence adds decision-relevant information.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. For a 4-param mutation with no annotations, the description covers mutation scope, cap, refusal condition, override params, and cross-references to `keepers`. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must supply meaning. It documents player_names (full or partial, from your roster), confirm (must be True to send, defaults to dry run), and the two override params — clear semantics beyond the bare schema. Minor gap: no format guidance on name matching.

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?

Starts with 'WRITE. Designate which of your players you are keeping' — a specific verb and resource. Explicitly distinguishes from the sibling `keepers` tool (read side) by pointing at it for both forward and draft keeper views.

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?

Gives the decisive usage rule: the list is COMPLETE not a delta, empty list clears, and it refuses only while a draft is running. Names `keepers` as the read alternative. Doesn't spell out when to prefer dry-run vs confirm beyond the default, but the operational conditions are clear.

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