recruit_for_war

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly discloses critical behaviors: the income split never transfers ownership (the territory stays yours), defense recruitment has no terms, the deal lives and dies with the war (offer ends when war ends), and it is free to send. This is exemplary transparency for a mutation-oriented tool.

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: scoping ('lives and dies with the war'), defaults, mode differences, and routing to alternatives are all present. It is structured with clear clauses per conceptunnels, and free to send adds a final clarity note. 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?

Covers the essential decision space: attack vs defence, income split mechanics, army stacking, defense filing prerequisite, and the alternative market bounty. The output schema is absent (!), so the agent cannot know the return shape, but that is covered by the absence of an output schema and the one-way nature of sending an offer. Minor gap: no statement about what success response looks like or error conditions, but for an initiation action this is acceptable.

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% (all 7 parameters have descriptions), which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining defaults and constraints: split defaults to 30% and 5 days, split applies only to attack offers, and the split takes income not dominion weight. The description also clarifies min_army as a commitment threshold. Minor deduction: the schema's split_days max of 9007199254740991 conflicts with the description's 'max 30' — schema is wrong, but a careful reader might be confused about which is authoritative.

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 what the tool does: initiate an offer to recruit another kingdom into your war, with specific mechanics for attack versus defense. It distinguishes this from related tools by mentioning war_participation bounty on the market and respond_war_offer. The verb 'recruit' with resource 'war offer' is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides strong when-to-use guidance: explicitly says attack offers carry terms, defense offers carry no terms locked to split_pct/split_days, and directs users wanting to pay to use a market bounty instead. It also references sibling tool respond_war_offer for the recruit's answer, clearly separating initiation from response.

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