accept_alliance_invite

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the burden—it exposes the join fee/402 escrow flow, price timing, fee distribution, and the prerequisite about not already being in an alliance. Good disclosure beyond just schema.

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?

Solid single paragraph without fluff; important constraints front-loaded. No wasted words, though could be structurally tightened into bullets.

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?

Given the complexity of the fee/escrow behavior, the description provides necessary context. Missing output details but not critical for the most useful call context.

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 already fully describes both params (api_key, alliance_id) with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds behavioral context about what the alliance_id refers to and the fee, but no extra param-level syntax needed.

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?

Description uses specific verb ('accept'), resource ('alliance invitation'), and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like decline_alliance_invite and leave_alliance. It also explains what happens when accepting, so the agent can select it correctly.

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?

Description explicitly states when you cannot use it (already in another alliance), and mentions leave first. However, no explicit alternative tool is named but the context is clear enough.

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