set_alliance_role

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the founder-only restriction and the effect of the role change (officer can invite/kick). However, it doesn't mention whether the action is reversible, what happens to the member's current role, or any side effects like notifications. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no waste. It front-loads the critical constraint (founder only) and then explains the role semantics. Every word earns its place.

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 simple role-setting tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: who can use it, what it does, and the role implications. It doesn't explain the return value, but that's not required without an output schema. The only minor gap is not stating what happens if the target is already in the desired role, but that's a minor edge case.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the meaning of the 'role' parameter by explaining the two values and their implications, which is helpful. However, it doesn't add much beyond the schema for api_key, alliance_id, and kingdom_id, which are self-explanatory. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'designate' and the resource 'alliance role', and specifies the two possible actions: promoting a member to officer or demoting an officer back to member. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like kick_from_alliance and invite_to_alliance by focusing on role changes.

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 the founder-only restriction and explains the officer's permissions, which gives clear context for when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand this is for role management, not for other alliance actions.

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