draft_pick

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

Annotations already disclose the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful context beyond them: it returns updated advice and must be called sequentially for every pick, implying stateful accumulation. It still doesn't describe what the 'advice' contains or failure behavior.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries meaning: what it does, when to call it, and what it returns.

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 single-param mutation tool whose annotations already cover the write/non-idempotent safety profile, the description covers the action and return. However, the undocumented parameter format and the absence of any note on draft-state prerequisites leave real gaps for correct invocation.

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% for the single 'player' parameter. The description implies the argument is the player being picked, but never states the expected format (name vs. ID) or how the pick maps to the parameter, leaving the agent to infer invocation syntax.

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?

States a specific verb (record) and resource (the pick for the team on the clock), which clearly separates it from siblings like draft_undo, draft_start, and draft_recommend. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 parenthetical '(call for every pick, in order)' gives implied usage in a live draft sequence, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. draft must be started), and no exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to the agent.

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