Activate From IR

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's implied mutating behavior is consistent. The phrase 'lineup move' adds mild context, but the description does not disclose operational details such as dry_run defaults or environment-dependent execution, which are left to the schema.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema, parameter defaults, and sibling context, the definition provides enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool. It is slightly thin on operational behavior, but the schema compensates for most of that gap.

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 71%, and key parameters like dry_run, sport, season, and league_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds little semantic value beyond the schema, though 'active or bench slot' loosely reinforces the meaning of to_slot.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') with a clear resource ('one player out of the IR/IL slot') and destination ('into an active or bench slot'). It uniquely distinguishes this operation from siblings like move_to_ir and set_lineup.

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 phrasing establishes the clear context: a player currently in the IR/IL slot should be moved into an active/bench spot as a lineup adjustment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is not ambiguous.

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