watch_player

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does flag 'WRITE' to signal mutation and warns that this call returns a Player OBJECT requiring a subfield selection. It omits prerequisites such as auth/permissions, idempotency (what happens if the player is already watched), and reversibility of removal.

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 'WRITE.' and the purpose in the first sentence, followed by a targeted gotcha. The GOTCHA paragraph is somewhat verbose and references a tool not present in the sibling list, but there is little outright waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are partially covered, and the description usefully notes the subfield-selection requirement. For a write tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, however, it should say more about the player_name argument and any auth/prerequisite conditions.

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 for both parameters, but it does not. 'Add or remove' loosely maps to the unwatch boolean, yet the required player_name gives no format or resolution detail (full name vs. ID), leaving parameter meaning largely to inference.

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 a specific verb (add or remove) and resource (Sleeper watchlist), so the agent immediately knows this mutates watchlist membership. It does not name the sibling that reads the list (watched_players), but the core action 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?

Usage is implied by the add/remove action and the 'WRITE' flag, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the read-side sibling watched_players. The GOTCHA addresses output shape, not selection between tools.

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