Add a free agent

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it requires ESPN_S2 and ESPN_SWID credentials, dryRun previews the payload without posting, and dropping a rostered player occurs in the same transaction. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to know.

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 logically organized and front-loads purpose and sibling differentiation. However, several sentences repeat information already present in the schema, such as player id format, teamId default, week default, and dryRun semantics. With 100% schema coverage, those repetitions make it longer than necessary and slightly reduce conciseness.

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 core action, the alternative tool, required credentials, defaults, dry-run behavior, and the transactional drop behavior. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. For a tool with five parameters and a destructive hint, this is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats some defaults already in the schema, but it adds transactional meaning by saying the drop happens in the same transaction and explicitly characterizes the action as adding a free agent with an optional drop. This adds nuance beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add an available free agent', and clarifies the optional drop of a rostered player in the same transaction. It clearly differentiates this from the sibling submit_waiver_claim by naming the condition that selects that sibling, so an agent can distinguish the tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use an alternative: 'Use submit_waiver_claim for players on waivers.' This gives the agent a direct routing rule. Combined with the title and opening sentence, the description leaves no ambiguity about when this tool applies versus its sibling.

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