record_pick

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'log a pick' without disclosing side effects, prerequisites, error conditions, or idempotency. The auto-syncing reference hints at a potential conflict but doesn't explain 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?

The description is two short sentences, with the action verb front-loaded. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum clarity with minimal length.

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?

The tool is a mutation with no annotations, and the description is sparse. It doesn't mention league context, validation rules, or what happens if the pick is already logged. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation, but other operational details are missing.

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%, and the description does not mention any parameters. Parameter names are somewhat intuitive, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, leaving room for ambiguity like pick numbering or team slot interpretation.

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 clearly states the tool logs a pick that just happened, using a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from auto-syncing workflows, which matches sibling tools like sync_draft.

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?

It explicitly says to use after every pick if not auto-syncing, providing a clear condition for use. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool like sync_draft, so the guidance is slightly indirect.

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