simulate_autosubs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It details key rules: substitutes enter in bench order, same position only, maximum three, and the captain's armband passes if the captain is replaced. It also defines 'unavailable' explicitly, which is valuable constraint information.

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 long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause adds essential rule information. There is no fluff or unnecessary repetition of schema details.

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?

The description is comprehensive for a simulation tool: it covers the substitution algorithm, constraints, and a definition of unavailable. Given that an output schema exists, return values need not be described. Edge cases like insufficient bench players are not mentioned, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 parameter meaning. It does define 'unavailable' and explains how bench order and captain are relevant, but it does not individually describe the 'starters' or 'bench' arrays beyond their roles implied by the rule. The captain parameter is only indirectly addressed.

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 is specific and action-oriented: 'Apply the §11 automatic substitutions to a team sheet.' This clearly states the tool's function and the resource it operates on, and it is distinct from sibling tools like transfer, pricing, and squad management functions.

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 implies a clear use case—when a team sheet has unavailable starters and autosubs should be applied—but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or say when not to use it. There is no mention of other tools for similar scenarios.

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