sync_draft

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses platform behavior, such as 'fully automatic, public API' for sleeper and the need for environment variables for private ESPN leagues. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it overwrites any local state, or what the return format is. These unaddressed behavioral aspects prevent a higher score.

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 succinct and well-organized, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by platform-specific details. Each sentence adds essential information without fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 multi-platform complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers platform distinctions, authentication prerequisites, and the paste fallback. It does not explain the season parameter or potential side effects, but it provides sufficient context for effective tool selection and invocation in most scenarios.

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 effectively explains the semantic roles of platform, draft_id, league_id, and pasted_board by linking each to a platform path. The season parameter is not mentioned, but the description covers most of the parameters and adds important context (e.g., environment variables) beyond the schema.

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 begins with 'Pull the current draft board from your platform,' which clearly states the verb (pull) and resource (draft board). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like record_pick or draft_status by emphasizing the syncing/pulling of the draft board from an external platform, and it lists platform-specific variants (sleeper, espn, paste) that further clarify its scope.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool and how to configure it per platform: draft_id for sleeper, league_id for espn, pasted_board for paste, and notes the ESPN_SWID/ESPN_S2 environment variable requirement for private leagues. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the platform-specific instructions serve as effective usage guidance.

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