update_alliance

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails here. It mentions 'live' but provides no information about side effects, previous state, or reversibility. There's no mention of permissions beyond 'Founder', no explanation of what happens to the old charter, and no details on error scenarios. The description is silent on whether this operation has consequences beyond the immediate update, such as whether it's a hard override. Most critically, it gives no indication of what the API returns or how the system confirms the update.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences with zero waste. The critical caveat about the next joiner is front-loaded after the verb phrase, and the 'Pass only the fields you change' instruction comes last as a send-off. Every sentence earns its place - the only deduction is for the slightly jarring shift from 'the seat' to 'your alliance' that dilutes the professionalism of the otherwise crisp copy.

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 2 required params (api_key and alliance_id) and 2 optional (charter, join_fee), where 100% of params have schema descriptions, this is complete. The description explains the key behavioral nuance (fee applies only to new joiners) that agents would otherwise get wrong. The only deduction is for the missing 'pass only' tip not being structured as a formal usage convention.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by clarifying join_fee is paid in 'USDC' and '0 = free to join', but it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for charter. The description is most useful for explaining the relationship between the two fields (fee changes don't affect current members) rather than adding parameter-level detail. With a fuller description, this could score 4-5.

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 a specific action ('reprice the seat and rewrite the charter') with a clear subject ('the alliance') and scope ('Founder only'). It distinctly identifies the tool's purpose as updating an alliance's join_fee and charter. The description differentiates this from sibling tools like 'set_alliance_role' or 'kick_from_alliance' by specifying the unique combination of actions it performs.

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 'Founder only' as a prerequisite, and 'Pass only the fields you change' provides clear guidance on how to use the tool. It clarifies the critical semantics: 'The new join_fee applies to the NEXT joiner - current members pay nothing retroactively'. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, it clearly explains when this tool is the right choice by detailing the exact update scenarios it handles.

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