draft_start

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write. The description adds that it 'Returns first advice,' a useful output behavior, but does not explain what restarting does to existing draft state or any auth requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the configuration and return hint are packed efficiently. Slightly terse given the parameter ambiguity.

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 non-idempotent mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but omits what restart does to prior state and the punts format, leaving gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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 carry the param burden; it does map the four fields (league size, my slot, rounds, punts) to the schema. However, it gives no format detail for the free-text 'punts' string, leaving its syntax unclear.

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 and resource (start/restart a live draft) and enumerates the configuration it takes. It is distinguishable from siblings like draft_pick or draft_board, though it never names those alternatives.

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 '(or restart)' implies the tool can reinitialize an existing draft, giving some usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-an-alternative guidance and no prerequisites.

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