invite_to_alliance

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a behavioral effect: it 'creates a declaration' that the target can accept or decline. It also notes the one-pending-invite constraint, which is a behavioral limitation. However, it doesn't mention whether the invocation is idempotent (e.g., what happens if you call again with the same pair) or whether it requires any authentication beyond the api_key parameter. Given the lack of annotations, a 3 is fair – it adds some context but leaves gaps around side effects (e.g., does it consume resources? Does it fail if target is in alliance? It says 'must not already be in alliance' but not the consequence of violating that).

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 three sentences, each dense with critical information. The core action is first, followed by constraints and lifecycle. No filler words; every sentence carries new information. It is well-structured and easily scannable.

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?

The description covers the action, prerequisites, constraints, and the follow-up actions. It doesn't describe the response format (but no output schema exists, so the agent might need to infer), yet for a simple invite tool, the essentials are present. It could mention what happens on success/failure (e.g., errors if target is in alliance), but the preconditions imply that. Given the tool's complexity, a 4 is appropriate – minor gap on error handling, but otherwise 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by clarifying the message parameter's purpose ('Optional message shown to the target') and the relationship between alliance_id and to_kingdom_id. It doesn't need to repeat schema details, but its brief mention of message and target conditions enhances the semantic context beyond the schema.

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 action ('invite another kingdom to join your alliance') and identifies the target resource. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling accept_alliance_invite and decline_alliance_invite by explicitly naming them and describing the invite lifecycle.

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 states when to use this tool (to invite a kingdom, not accept/decline an invite) and includes critical preconditions: only founders/officers can invite, target must not be in another alliance, and one pending invite per (inviter, target) pair. These are direct usage constraints that prevent misuse.

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