Submit a waiver claim

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds valuable behavior context: ESPN processes the claim under league rules, dryRun previews without posting, and ESPN_S2/ESPN_SWID are required. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears in the first sentence, followed by defaults, credential requirements, and preview behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

For a mutating waiver tool with six parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what the claim does, optional drop, defaults for bid/teamId/week, dryRun safety, and required credentials. Nothing critical for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description mostly restates schema defaults (bid 0, teamId defaults to ESPN_TEAM_ID, dryRun previews payload) and the negative D/ST id note, adding little new semantic value beyond the structured fields.

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 and resource: 'Claim a player on waivers with an optional drop and a nonnegative bid.' It clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from siblings like cancel_waiver_claim, add_player, and drop_player by framing it as a waiver-claim submission.

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 sets clear context: this tool is for submitting a waiver claim, not for canceling one or for ordinary adds/drops. It does not explicitly contrast itself with cancel_waiver_claim or other siblings, but the action is unambiguous enough that an agent can select it appropriately.

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