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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotency, but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the side effects (stop sharing, revoke alliance access, notify the alliance) and the pre-read of the current relationship, plus the 'must first be released by the alliance' constraint. It still doesn't state reversibility or confirmability, keeping it at 4.

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 definition is dense but front-loaded, leading with the login/role precondition and then the sequence of effects. Every clause carries information, though the run-on structure with multiple semicolon-separated steps is slightly harder to parse than a cleanly segmented version.

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 and no annotation contradiction, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, and a key ordering caveat. The main remaining gap is the absence of any return-value or confirmation/undo expectation, but the core calling information is present.

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% for the single organizationId parameter, so the description must carry the load. It implies the target is the affiliated organization the caller manages ('读当前关系后确认组织'), but adds no format, lookup, or identification detail beyond that inference. Partial compensation warrants the baseline 3.

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 names a specific action (退出加盟联盟 – exiting the alliance affiliation) with a clear resource, and the prerequisite '须组织实际管理者且为加盟关系' implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like leave_organization or detach_alliance_organization. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly names an alternative sibling to route against.

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 gives concrete preconditions (login required, must be the actual organization manager, must currently hold an affiliation relationship) and a sequencing rule ('自有组织须先由联盟释放'), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives such as detach_alliance_organization or cancel_organization_alliance_request, so it does not reach a 5.

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