fossa_create_issue_dispute

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true requirement and explains the behavioral constraint that vulnerability issues cannot be disputed. This goes beyond the structured annotations and provides useful operational context.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by the write requirement and a concise but complete breakdown of reason constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers the action, prerequisite (FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES), reason categorization, and the vulnerability exclusion. Since an output schema exists, omitting return-value details is acceptable. Minor gap: no explanation of the 'comment' parameter, but it is low-risk and self-evident.

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?

The schema has an enum for 'reason' but no descriptions. The description adds semantic meaning by grouping the enum values into licensing vs quality categories and explicitly excluding vulnerability issues. Other parameters (issue_id, comment) are self-explanatory, so this covers the key parameter adequately.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Dispute') and resource ('licensing or quality issue'), and it immediately clarifies that it tells FOSSA the finding is wrong. This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools, as there is no other dispute-specific tool.

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 when-not guidance ('Vulnerability issues cannot be disputed') and implicitly when-to-use by explaining that it is for incorrect licensing or quality findings. It also states that the reason must match the issue's category, which helps the agent select the correct usage context.

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