modify_lineup

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the two-step confirmation process (preview then execute) and transaction capability, but does not mention potential side effects, restrictions (e.g., roster lock times, player eligibility), or reversibility, which would enhance transparency.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'Modify', and each sentence delivers a distinct piece of information: purpose, confirmation pattern, and capability. No unnecessary 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?

For a tool with 6 optional parameters and a two-phase action, the description explains core behavior but lacks details on the preview output, possible errors, and explicit usage constraints (e.g., when roster is locked). Given the output schema exists, full return documentation is not required, but more context on prerequisites would improve completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that single or multiple moves can be handled in one transaction, reinforcing the moves parameter behavior and explaining the confirm parameter's role, providing value beyond 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 modifies team lineup by moving players between slots and distinguishes from sibling tools like add_free_agent or drop_player which handle roster moves, not lineup configuration.

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 the confirmation pattern and ability to move single or multiple players, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to alternatives like add_free_agent or drop_player, though the context of lineup changes is implicit.

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