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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: login and managePolicy permission requirements, the two execution modes, and the key destructive trait that a new proposal overrides any current pending proposal from either side. This meaningfully enriches the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: permission gate first, then read-before-write guidance, then parameter semantics, then mode behavior. Every clause carries information; only the identity parameters are left unaddressed.

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, it covers permissions, prerequisite reads, the ambiguous unit parameter, and override behavior. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit identity-parameter semantics and rollback/reversibility detail.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains allianceShareBps thoroughly (0..10000, alliance's share of the acquisition/management pool, 10000=100%, explicitly not whole-order revenue), but allianceId and organizationId get no clarification beyond 'confirm alliance/organization'.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: setting/proposing an organization's revenue share within an alliance, and clarifies the two modes (self-owned direct effect vs franchise pending acceptance). It does not explicitly name the sibling propose_organization_alliance_share to differentiate, but the dual-mode framing makes the operation's scope unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear precondition: login required, alliance leader with managePolicy only, and instructs the agent to first read the subordinate organization's share and relation. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so it is context-rich but not fully routing.

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