Add and/or drop a player

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

The description explicitly states it is destructive and modifies real data, aligning with annotations. It explains the add/drop/both behavior and mentions defaulting to configured team. No contradiction with annotations.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with 'DESTRUCTIVE'. Each sentence adds essential information: destructive nature, usage pattern, example key, and confirmation requirement. No wasted words.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers behavior, parameter usage, and safety. It does not detail return values, but the lack of output schema makes this acceptable.

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 100%, and the description adds valuable context: example player key format ('431.p.10642'), default team behavior, and the semantic relationship between add and drop parameters for simultaneous operation.

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 modifies a Yahoo roster by adding and/or dropping players. It uses specific verbs ('adds', 'drops', 'modifies') and distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_team_roster, get_transactions) by being the only destructive roster modification tool.

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 provides clear context: it is for modifying a real roster, defaults to the configured team, and includes a safety instruction to confirm with the user. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the destructive nature and context make its usage clear.

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