fossa_delete_issue_exceptions

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

Annotations already indicate write (readOnlyHint=false) and destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds essential context: 'WRITES TO FOSSA' and the required environment variables FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true and FOSSA_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true. It also describes the side effect (issues become active again) and the safeguard against clearing all exceptions in one call.

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 the core purpose, then permissions, then usage modes and safety notes. Each of the five sentences contributes distinct value—purpose, auth requirements, input options, safety constraint, and recommended pre-check—without extraneous filler.

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 complexity (6 optional parameters, multiple target modes) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the necessary prerequisites, permissions, selection semantics, and safety guardrails. It also references fossa_get_issue_exceptions as a pre-flight step, making it 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter's role: exception_id for a single rule, exception_ids for a named list, and filter parameters (category, project_id, release_group_id, policy_id) for batch deletion. It also clarifies the constraint that at least one filter must be provided, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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?

Clearly states 'Delete issue ignore rules' with the effect 'makes the issues they were suppressing active again.' This distinguishes from sibling tools like fossa_get_issue_exceptions and fossa_extend_issue_exception by specifying the delete action and the scope (single, list, or filter).

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?

Provides explicit usage rules: 'Pass exactly one target' and details the three modes (exception_id, exception_ids, filter). It warns that the filter form requires at least one filter, preventing blanket deletes, and directs the agent to 'Run fossa_get_issue_exceptions first to see what a filter covers.' This is clear when-to-use and safety guidance.

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