set_draft_queue_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the optimistic concurrency mechanism (stale writes are rejected) and the consequence of preventing silent overwrites of picks or other queue edits. This goes beyond a generic 'update' statement.

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 long with no wasted words. It front-loads the core behavior and immediately provides the essential prerequisite, making it easy to parse and act on.

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?

The description covers the critical behavior and prerequisite for safe writes, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, it does not elaborate on optional parameters or clarify that player_id and queue_rank are required (though schema does). For the tool's complexity, it is reasonably complete but not exhaustive.

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 parameter meaning. It adds significant context for expected_queue_revision and expected_state_token by explaining they are concurrency tokens. However, the remaining six parameters (tier, draft_id, rationale, roster_id, player_id, queue_rank) are not described beyond their schema titles, leaving gaps.

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 performs a conflict-safe insert-or-update of one player in the local draft queue, using specific verbs and a resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling remove_draft_queue_entry by explicitly mentioning insert/update rather than removal.

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 a clear when-to-use context (insert or update a queue entry) and a specific prerequisite: copy expected_queue_revision and expected_state_token from get_draft_state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous relative to sibling tools.

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