configure_league

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions side effects: making the league active, and separate boards/replacement levels/drafts. However, it does not explain overwrite/update semantics (what happens if a league name already exists), prerequisites, or error behavior. This is moderate transparency, covering some behavioral context but leaving significant gaps.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The scoring parameter explanations are helpful, though the 'side by side' example adds context that could be shortened. Overall, no wasted sentences, but structure could be tightened.

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 tool's complexity (15 parameters, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It explains a few scoring-related params but omits core lineup configuration, draft settings, and data source (adp_csv_path). While an output schema exists, the description does not clarify the many optional fields or the update behavior, leaving the agent under-informed 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains scoring options, superflex, te_premium_bonus, and consistency_weight, but 11 of 15 parameters (e.g., qb, rb, wr, te, flex, snake, teams, rounds, draft_slot, adp_csv_path) remain undocumented in both schema and description. The partial coverage is insufficient for a 15-parameter tool.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Create or update a league, and make it the active one.' This distinguishes it from siblings like list_leagues, switch_league, and remove_league. The additional context about multiple leagues side by side reinforces the tool's unique role.

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 usage by explaining the tool creates/updates and activates a league, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like switch_league or list_leagues. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, though the sibling names provide obvious distinctions. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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