decline_alliance_invite

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure on its own. It usefully states that the inviter is notified and may send a new invite later, indicating the refusal is not a permanent alliance block. However, it does not describe authorization, failure conditions such as an already accepted or nonexistent invitation, or whether a confirmation response is returned.

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?

The description is a single lean sentence plus one result clause; it front-loads the action and object and adds only the behavioral facts that matter. No redundant or filler language is present.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, recipient scope, and downstream effects, which is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it. It stops short of describing edge-case outcomes or the expected response payload, but those are not required given the action's simplicity and complete parameter schema.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with clear descriptions, so the schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description does not add syntax or formatting details for the parameters, meeting the baseline but not surpassing it.

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?

The description names the exact operation ('Decline'), the object ('an alliance invitation'), and the recipient scope ('sent to your kingdom'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from accept_alliance_invite and reject_join_request, so an agent can select it without inspecting related tools.

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?

It establishes a clear triggering condition: the agent should call this when there is an alliance invitation that the kingdom wants to refuse. It does not explicitly contrast with accept_alliance_invite or list exclusion cases, but the context is clear enough and no misleading advice is present.

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