Move lineup players

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

Annotations already signal mutation via destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful operational detail: the caller must list every move including the player vacating a slot, no counter-moves are auto-generated, and dryRun previews the payload without posting. It also discloses required ESPN credentials, which is important for invoking the tool.

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 opening sentence states the core purpose, followed by short sentences on behavior, ids/defaults, dryRun, and auth. It is slightly longer than necessary because some parameter details repeat what the schema already documents, but every sentence carries useful information and the structure is logical.

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?

Given a 4-parameter tool with an output schema and destructive annotations, the description covers all essential invocation context: auth, defaults, slot semantics, dryRun safety, and the 'list every move' rule. No critical detail appears missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 high at 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving slot value examples ('QB, FLEX, BE or IR') and restating key defaults and the negative D/ST id convention, which helps agents construct valid moves. Some redundancy with the schema exists, but the slot clarification compensates.

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 ('Move') and resource ('rostered players to eligible slots'), and enumerates slot examples. This clearly distinguishes set_lineup from sibling tools like add_player, drop_player, and submit_waiver_claim, which operate on acquisitions or drops rather than lineup placement.

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 clearly frames the tool for repositioning already-rostered players and calls out auth prerequisites, defaults, and dry-run behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state hard when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'rostered players' scope plus sibling names makes the intended context clear enough.

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