kick_from_alliance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states there's no vote/protection mechanism and that members can leave freely, which frames the action's reversibility and consequences. However, it doesn't mention what the response looks like or whether kicks are repeatable.

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?

Two tight sentences deliver role-based permissionsrost, consequence framing, and absence of a protection mechanism. Front-loaded with the action verb and immediately useful information, no filler.

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?

With 3 fully-described parameters succeeding an actual schema and no output schema, the description covers the rule semantics and consequences. It omits potential failure modes (e.g., what happens if the target is not a member) but is adequate for a simple mutation tool.

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% and includes descriptive field names (kingdom_id, alliance_id, api_key). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage baseline of 3.

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 has a specific verb ('Kick'), a clear resource ('alliance member'), and explicitly scopes who can kick whom with a parenthetical role rule. It is immediately distinguishable from the invitation and alliance-construction siblings (invite_to_alliance, request_join_alliance, 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?

The parenthetical establishes the authorization context (founders vs officers) and implicitly conveys that regular members cannot kick. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for member removal (e.g., leave_alliance is self-initiated), but the permission distinction is useful guidance.

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