recommend_lineup

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

The description is rich with behavioral detail: status outcomes (ok/incomplete), the edge case where unknown unchanged scores cancel improvement, the non-authorization of repairs from coverage suggestions, locked-slot preservation, and the guarantee that it appends evidence without changing the current lineup. This goes well beyond the sparse annotations.

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 long but dense: every sentence carries a distinct constraint, behavior, or alternative. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then branches into status details, edge cases, side-effect guarantees, and alternatives. A few phrases are jargon-heavy, but nothing is 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?

Covers purpose, input sources, output statuses, edge cases (unknown scores cancel improvement), guarantees (locked slots, no lineup change), limitations (coverage gaps, no repair authorization), and alternatives (prepare_action, ESPN companion). No critical context is missing for an agent to decide and invoke it.

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?

The input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates by naming the conceptual inputs (saved snapshot, projections, locks, source age limits) and the status/error payload shape, which gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool without parameter docs.

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 verb and outcome: 'Optimize the selected team's known weekly projections while preserving locked slots.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from a generic lineup generator. It also names alternatives (prepare_action, ESPN companion) so an agent can tell it apart from related tools without guessing.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: optimizing projections while respecting locked slots.linkText It explicitly points to prepare_action for synthetic proposals and the ESPN companion for live changes. It does not explicitly say

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