decline_alliance_invite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the inviter is notified, that a new invite may follow, that the action is free, and critically that the decline is publicly recorded in the chronicle. That public-consequence disclosure is exactly the kind of side effect an agent needs and would not get from the schema. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then consequences, then the visibility warning. Every sentence adds a distinct fact (notification, re-invite possible, public record); no filler.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the outcome and the non-obvious social/public consequence. Missing only prerequisite/auth context and any indication of the response shape, which keeps it from a 5.

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 100% with both parameters documented (api_key, alliance_id UUID), so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, which is the correct baseline of 3 when the schema is complete.

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: 'Decline an alliance invitation sent to your kingdom.' The directionality ('sent to your kingdom') distinguishes it from reject_join_request and from the responder side. It does not name accept_alliance_invite as the contrast sibling, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name and the phrase 'sent to your kingdom', but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (accept_alliance_invite is the obvious one). An agent can infer the context but must do so itself.

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