set_lineup

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 discloses WRITE behavior, confirm=True to send versus default dry run, and in-week changes including players whose games have kicked off, with only locked players immovable.

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-loads WRITE and the purpose, then moves into argument-specific guidance. Every sentence adds useful detail without redundant repetition, and the args section is appropriately structured for a five-parameter tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description covers prerequisites (league_info), slot-order mechanics, dry-run/confirm safety, and edge cases like in-week changes and locked players. Nothing critical 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It documents all five parameters: players_in_slot_order (names in slot order, use team code for defense), league_id_ and roster_id_ defaults, week (NFL week, 0=current), and confirm (True to send, False=dry run).

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?

States 'WRITE. Set your starting lineup for a week' — a specific verb and resource. The action is unambiguous against siblings like set_keepers and set_ir, even without naming an alternative.

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 clear context: use this to set a weekly starting lineup, and call league_info to see the required slot order. It does not name when-not-to-use or alternatives, so exclusions are absent.

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