sync_draft

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 adds meaningful traits: it is a low-latency path, detects picks made during the read, and is intended to be paired with get_draft_state. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but the core behavioral nuance is present.

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 the primary purpose, and every sentence adds useful information. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 what the tool does and when to call it, and an output schema exists to describe return values. However, parameter usage is completely unaddressed, and with many sibling sync tools, some explicit exclusions or alternative comparisons would make the description more complete.

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% and the description does not mention draft_id or league_id at all. With two optional parameters and no guidance on how they relate to each other or when to provide them, the description provides no parameter-level semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Refresh') with a precise resource ('live draft details, picks, and traded-pick ownership') and scoping word ('only'). It clearly separates this tool from sibling sync tools by emphasizing the draft-specific, low-latency nature.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: 'Call it immediately before a draft decision' and explains the integration with get_draft_state via sync provenance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sync tools, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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