request_join_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 meaningful work: it discloses that the request requires leader approval and, notably, that both the request and the answer become public chronicle rows visible to everyone. It does not cover whether the request can be withdrawn, rate limits, or permission requirements beyond the api_key.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisite and the visibility consequence. The closing chronicle sentence is somewhat colloquial ('who turned whom away') but earns its place by conveying a real privacy side effect.

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 3-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers what the tool does, how to find a target alliance, the approval flow, and the public visibility of the request. It omits follow-up state (how to check pending status), which keeps it short of full completeness.

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 api_key, alliance_id, and the optional message are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (request) and resource (join an alliance) with the immediate consequence (leader approves or rejects). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like accept_join_request, invite_to_alliance, and form_alliance.

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 concrete prerequisite pointer to find an alliance via GET /api/v1/alliances (corresponding to the get_alliances sibling), which is genuinely actionable. It does not name exclusions, such as what to do if you are already in an alliance or have a pending request.

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