invite_to_alliance

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 call creates a declaration row, that the target can accept or decline via named siblings, and that the invite and its outcome are public chronicle rows. It does not say what the immediate response looks like or what errors to expect.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by permission and state constraints. Dense but nearly every sentence carries a distinct rule; only the trailing clause about 'silence' is somewhat ornate.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover preconditions and side effects, which it does (permissions, target state, dedup rule, public declaration). Missing only error/response behavior, a minor gap for this complexity level.

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 100%, so the four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only conceptual framing (alliance_id = your alliance, to_kingdom_id = target) and never mentions the optional message parameter, so it stays at 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?

States a specific verb (invite) and resource (another kingdom into your alliance) in the first sentence, and implicitly contrasts with the reverse-direction sibling request_join_alliance. An agent can distinguish this from accept/decline invite tools without reading schemas.

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 explicit preconditions: caller must be a founder or officer, the target must not already be in another alliance, and only one pending invite per (inviter, target) pair. It stops short of naming alternative tools to use when those preconditions fail (e.g. request_join_alliance for the opposite flow).

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