Save Settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses side effects, return contract, config-file precedence, and ordering between writing values and the ESPN check, including the distinction between a cookie error and a validation error.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds necessary usage, return, or side-effect detail. It covers invocation, success/failure responses, storage precedence, and error semantics without 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 tool with no annotations and low schema parameter coverage, the description is unusually complete: it includes return values, error semantics, side effects, precedence, and conditional behavior. An agent can call this tool correctly and relay the right message to the user on failure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter docs. It references 'ESPN credentials and league id' and the espn_s2/SWID cookies, but it does not formally map each schema parameter to its meaning, format, or default behavior. It adds useful context but not full per-parameter clarity.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Save ESPN credentials and league id, then verify them against ESPN.' This clearly names the resource, the mutation, and the verification behavior. It is easy to distinguish from sibling read tools like get_league_settings and whoami.

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 explicitly states when to call it directly ('if the user pasted values into the chat') and identifies its normal invocation path via the setup card's Save & test button. It does not explicitly list alternatives to avoid, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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