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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds concrete consequence detail the annotations cannot: all 7 authorization items must be confirmed, staff auto-join, and switching alliances removes the old relationship, re-links access, and notifies the old alliance. This is meaningful disclosure of side effects beyond the safety flags.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the login/permission requirement before the consequences and the recommended ordering. Every clause carries content, though the packing of prerequisites and effects into one block is slightly hard to scan.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers permissions, preconditions, side effects, notifications, and a recovery check. The one real gap is parameter meaning, which is left entirely to the undocumented schema.

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 neither param has any documented meaning, so the description carries the full burden. It only alludes to '目标联盟、组织' generically and gives no format, ID source, or validation semantics for allianceId/organizationId, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb-resource pairing ('attach alliance organization' = 并入自有为联盟自有) is specific and separable from siblings like create_alliance_organization, detach_alliance_organization, and apply_organization_to_alliance. It fails to reach 5 only because '并入自有' is elliptical about what an attach actually changes without reading the rest of the sentence.

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?

Prerequisites are stated explicitly (login required, alliance manage permission, I must be the organization owner) and a workflow is prescribed ('先查双方详情，失败查实际关系'). It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for the when-not case, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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