fossa_delete_custom_risk_score

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses crucial consequences: 'The score and its stated reason are both gone; there is no read endpoint to recover them from afterwards.' This irreversibility and lack of recovery endpoint is valuable context that annotations do not provide. Also reinforces that it writes to FOSSA.

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 three sentences with no fluff: states the action, the prerequisites, and the consequence. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and each sentence earns its place. Excellent conciseness.

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 description covers purpose, prerequisites, and irreversibility, and the presence of an output schema covers return values. However, with three required parameters and zero schema description coverage, the lack of parameter explanations is a notable gap. The description is adequate for understanding the tool's role but not fully complete for invoking it correctly without inferring parameter meanings from names alone.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description provides no parameter-specific guidance. It only mentions 'in one scope' without linking to scope_type or scope_id. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema itself, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 action: 'Remove the custom risk score from a vulnerability issue in one scope', and explains the effect ('so FOSSA ranks it by its standard severity again'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fossa_set_custom_risk_score. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 explains the required environment ('Requires FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true and FOSSA_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true') and implies the use case of reverting to standard severity. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context of removing a custom risk score is clear from the tool name and description.

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