leave_alliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight and excels: it reveals succession rules, disband condition, instant loss of NAP/passage/channel access, tile-darkening effects, and the backdating of betrayal. Every behavioral consequence is spelled out.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place—core action first, then succession rules, then immediate effects, then the critical warning. No fluff; structure flows logically from action to consequences.

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 tool with no output schema and minimal parameters, the description covers all critical edge cases: founder with members, sole member, instant termination effects, tile mechanics, and betrayal timing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 only parameter, api_key, is fully documented in the schema with 'Your Crowns API key'. The description adds nothing about parameters because there is nothing more to add; baseline 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 opens with the exact verb and resource: 'Leave your current alliance'. It distinguishes itself from all alliance-related siblings by focusing solely on departure, not formation, invitations, or roles. The added 'always free' and 'writes nothing' clarify the action's nature.

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?

No explicit alternative is named, but the tool is the only leave action among siblings, making its use self-evident. The description does provide situational guidance on founder vs. member outcomes and when the alliance disbands, which effectively informs when one should call it.

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