lineup_steps

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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it journals the recommendation (a side effect) and that confirm=true updates the demo roster. It discloses what gets written but not auth requirements or repeat-call 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?

Compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the single dense sentence is overloaded with nested parentheticals and unexplained jargon, making it hard to parse on first read.

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 multi-step lineup mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the ordering logic, the journaling side effect, and the confirm gate. It is largely complete, with the only notable gap being the day parameter and the comparison to optimize_lineup.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains confirm well (only after owner confirmation; demo league updates roster) but says nothing about the day parameter beyond context. One of two params is meaningfully described.

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+resource: produces a recommended lineup for a game day as exact ordered steps for the owner, with concrete ordering rules (IL moves first, started players stay put, tie-breaks). It is distinguishable from generic siblings, though heavy domain jargon ('ET', 'FBM', 'IL') assumes insider knowledge.

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?

Gives one real usage rule (confirm=true only after the owner confirms they set it) and notes that IL activations needing a drop should be routed to a proposal. However it never states when to use this over the sibling optimize_lineup, so the primary alternative is left to inference.

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