Set daily lineup

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

The description explicitly labels the tool as 'DESTRUCTIVE' and states it changes real Yahoo roster positions, aligning with the destructiveHint annotation. It adds behavioral details: 'Players not listed keep their current slot' and 'Defaults to your configured team and today's date.' This goes beyond the annotation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with 'DESTRUCTIVE:', and every sentence provides necessary information. No fluff, highly efficient.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, parameters, defaults, and user confirmation. It could optionally mention the return value or success indication, but it is sufficiently complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

The description adds value beyond the schema by providing example positions (1B, OF, SP, Util, BN) and clarifying default behavior for date and teamKey. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the extra context raises it to 4.

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 'changes your real Yahoo roster positions for a given date' using a specific verb ('changes') and resource ('Yahoo roster positions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_drop_player or get_team_roster by focusing on lineup setting.

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 advises to 'Confirm the lineup with the user before calling this' and notes defaults for date and team. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the context is clear when to use this tool versus other roster management tools.

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