record_trade_offer

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 states 'Record' and 'for future calibration' but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing records, appends to a log, requires an existing synced league, or has any side effects. The behavior of the recording operation is essentially undisclosed beyond the verb itself.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant phrasing. It earns every word and is 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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse for a 7-parameter tool. It does not explain the relationship between proposing and receiving rosters, the structure of player ID arrays, or any prerequisites like league sync. The phrase 'trade labels' fails to convey the full context of a trade offer recording, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'status' parameter by listing valid statuses (proposed/rejected/countered/accepted), which is not present in the schema. However, it does not explain give_player_ids, receive_player_ids, roster IDs, league_id, or note, leaving most parameters semantically underdefined.

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 uses the specific verb 'Record' and identifies the resource as 'trade labels' with explicit statuses (proposed/rejected/countered/accepted). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_decision_action, but the term 'labels' is slightly vague and could be more precise about recording trade offers.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as record_decision_action and record_decision_outcome are present but no exclusions or differentiators are mentioned. The only context is 'for future calibration,' which implies a purpose but no clear usage conditions.

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