plan_my_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral details: 'Runs the board forward pick by pick, using ADP to model who realistically falls to you at each turn' and 'applies the same recommendation logic at every stop.' The word 'simulate' strongly implies a read-only action, though side-effect absence is not explicitly stated.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by mechanism and parameter values. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, algorithm, and parameter values well. It does not mention prerequisites such as an active league or draft, but the sibling tool context suggests these are managed elsewhere.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and no enum, but the description adds the valid strategy values: 'balanced, zero_rb, hero_rb, or robust_rb.' This gives the parameter real meaning beyond the bare schema string, though it does not elaborate on what each strategy entails.

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 opens with 'Simulate your whole draft from your slot and return the projected lineup,' which clearly states the tool's action, scope, and output. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_pick or who_should_i_pick, which are not simulation-focused.

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 makes the simulation use-case clear ('Simulate your whole draft') and implies it is for planning rather than live drafting. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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