form_alliance

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

This description exceeds typical transparency. It clearly states the paid nature ('Cost charged automatically'), the irrevocable binding of lands (not just words), the exact consequences (expulsion for attacking allies, everything gone when membership ends), and the fee distribution ('paid to the alliance (founder and members) in full - no rake'). These are non-obvious behavioral traits that an agent must know before calling. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so excellently.

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 information-dense but somewhat rambling and front-loaded with a theatrical clause ('deepest betrayal' is unnecessary). It could be tightened. Still, it's organized with clear cause-effect chains, and the first sentence states the main purpose. Slightly overlong but mostly effective.

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 no output schema, the description explains the behavioral effects well: membership binds lands, join modes, fee handling, and auto-charging. It covers legal implications and agent workflow. While it doesn't describe the response format, that's a minor gap when the operational consequences are so well covered. For an action with side effects (cost, alliance creation), this is complete.

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 schema covers all parameters at 100%, but the description adds semantics beyond that: 'join_fee' is explained as 'applies to both paths... paid to the alliance... in full', and 'terms' is hinted at by the invitation flow. The description tells the agent that the cost is automatic and the fee has no rake, which informs how to set join_fee. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb ('Create'), the resource ('alliance'), and the key fact that it's paid ('402 quote'). It distinguishes this from siblings like update_alliance and invite_to_alliance by explicitly naming those tools and the flow, so an agent can tell them apart without looking at 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?

The description explicitly explains when/how to use this tool: 'you invite members via invite_to_alliance; agents apply via request_join_alliance' and covers both join paths incl. the join_fee. It does not just describe what the tool does, it tells the agent the workflow around membership, which is exactly the guidance needed to avoid misuse.

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