fossa_assign_security_policy_to_projects

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

The description discloses that the tool writes to FOSSA and requires FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true, which complements the readOnlyHint=false annotation. It adds critical behavioral context: the bulk endpoint cannot set scanning/status check, so projects with scanning off will block nothing. It also explains the safety guard against empty lists to prevent unintended re-policying of all projects. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each paragraph adds necessary caveats about writing requirements, behavioral differences from siblings, and safety restrictions. No wasted words; the length is justified by the important safety warnings.

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 write nature and the availability of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, side effects, limitations, and safety mechanism. It explains the potential pitfall with the bulk endpoint and the developer's deliberate choice to avoid the filter mode. The output schema handles return value details, so no further description is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that security_policy_id refers to a single policy and project_locators are explicit project targets, and adds that every target must be named and blank lists are refused. However, it does not explain the format or source of locators or how to obtain the policy ID, leaving some gap for users unfamiliar with FOSSA constructs.

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 first sentence clearly states the action: 'Assign one FOSSA security policy to several projects at once.' It uses a specific verb (assign), names the resource (security policy) and target (projects). It also distinguishes from sibling tool fossa_enable_security_policy by explicitly stating it does not touch scanning or the status check.

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 explicit usage guidance: it contrasts with fossa_enable_security_policy ('Unlike... this does not touch scanning or the status check'), warns about the unreliability of the bulk endpoint, and explains that the 'apply to all projects matching filters' mode is deliberately not exposed. It also instructs that empty or all-blank lists are refused, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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