claim_waiver

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the confirmation pattern, pending status, processing during waiver periods, and the requirement to drop a player if roster is full. It does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or error conditions, but covers key behavioral aspects adequately.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence serves a purpose: action, confirmation pattern, processing details, roster condition. No redundancy or wasted words.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers key behaviors (confirmation, pending, roster full). It does not explain return values or error conditions, but is sufficiently complete for a waiver claim tool.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds context beyond schema by explaining the confirmation pattern, default bid of 0, and when drop_player_id is required. This provides meaningful guidance for parameter usage.

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?

Description begins with 'Submit a waiver claim with optional FAAB bid', providing a specific verb+resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like add_free_agent (immediate vs. waiver processing) and drop_player (drop only) by explaining the waiver process and pending status.

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?

Description explains when to use the tool (waiver claims), the confirmation pattern (preview then execute), and a condition (roster full requires drop). It implicitly distinguishes from add_free_agent by mentioning waiver periods, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to all alternatives.

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