drop_player

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the confirmation pattern and that the tool is a mutation. It does not detail side effects (e.g., whether the player becomes a free agent or goes to waivers) but the preview mechanism adds safety context.

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 two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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 6 optional parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the key behavior (confirmation pattern). It could mention that the preview response structure is provided by the output schema, but the current text is sufficient for understanding the workflow.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., confirm, team_id, etc.). It does not explain how parameters interact beyond the confirmation flag.

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 drops a player from the team and distinguishes the confirmation pattern. The verb 'drop' and resource 'player from your team' are specific, differentiating it from sibling tools like add_free_agent or claim_waiver.

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 that the tool uses a two-step confirmation pattern (preview then execute). While it does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, the guidance for using confirm=false first and confirm=true second is clear and actionable.

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