add_free_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the destructive nature (adding/dropping players) and the two-step confirmation pattern (preview then execute). It also explains the condition when drop is mandatory. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, which are minor gaps given the clarity of the confirm pattern.

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 three sentences (55 words), all essential. It front-loads the purpose, then explains the confirmation pattern, then addresses the roster condition. No filler or repetition.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, confirmation pattern) and presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers core functionality, flow, and a key condition. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but with no annotations and a good schema, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the confirm pattern (preview vs execute) and the condition for drop_player_id (required if roster full). It also implicitly clarifies that add_player_id and drop_player_id are ESPN player IDs, which is context not explicitly in the schema.

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's action: 'Add a free agent to your team, optionally dropping a player.' It distinguishes from siblings like drop_player (which only drops) and claim_waiver (different process) by explicitly mentioning the optional drop and confirmation pattern.

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 explains when to use the tool: for adding a free agent with optional drop, and specifies the two-step confirmation pattern. It also notes the condition when drop_player_id is required (roster full). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like drop_player or claim_waiver, so usage context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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