fossa_apply_project_label

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true requirement, the write side effect, and the failures map in the response. These details are not present in the annotations, which only indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds unique value: the write warning, label prerequisite, explicit naming requirement, and failure reporting. There is no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's low parameter count, existing annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the action, the write requirement, the limitation on label creation, the explicit project naming, and the failure reporting. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining label_id is a numeric id of an existing label and project_locators are explicit project names. It could provide more detail on the exact locator format, but the key semantics are conveyed.

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: 'Apply one existing organization label to a list of projects.' It distinguishes itself from related operations by explicitly noting it does not create labels and that the filter-based bulk assignment mode is not exposed.

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 clear context: the label must already exist, projects must be explicitly named, and the tool is a write operation requiring FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the exclusions (no label creation, no filter mode) help an agent decide when to use it.

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