fossa_create_package_labels

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it requires FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true, clarifies that only label definitions are created (not assignments), and states that the response includes created label IDs needed by assignment tools. This matches annotations (readOnlyHint=false) with no contradiction.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. No redundant wording. Each sentence adds valuable information (purpose, write requirement, scope, and response details).

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema (not shown, but noted). The description covers what it does, prerequisites, how it differs from related tools, and what the response contains. No significant gaps.

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 only provides the parameter type (array of strings) with no description. The description adds 'one or more' indicating non-empty, and clarifies these are package label definitions. It doesn't specify label format constraints, but for a simple string array this is adequate.

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 and resource: 'Create one or more package labels in the organization.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fossa_create_organization_label (which creates org-level labels) and assignment tools that bind labels to packages.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool ('creates label definitions only') and when not ('nothing is tagged until fossa_assign_package_labels or fossa_bulk_assign_package_label binds one to a package'). It also names the alternative tools and notes the write permission requirement (FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true).

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