fossa_delete_oidc_trust_relationship

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, etc.), the description adds critical behavioral details: required environment variables (FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES, FOSSA_ALLOW_ADMIN, FOSSA_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE), irreversibility ('not reversible from here'), and the side effect that existing tokens are not invalidated. These go far beyond what annotations convey.

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 compact yet information-dense. Each sentence adds value: purpose, required environment flags, irreversibility, recommendation to read first, and token expiration behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary action and uses minimal wording without unnecessary fluff.

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 is fully adequate for a destructive tool: it explains what it does, prerequisites, side effects, and related actions. An output schema exists, so return value details are not necessary. Given the tool's complexity and the rich annotations, no meaningful gaps remain.

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 a single self-explanatory parameter, trust_relationship_id. Schema coverage is 0% because the description does not mention the parameter by name, but it indirectly explains how to obtain it via fossa_get_oidc_trust_relationship. This is sufficient compensation for a simple ID parameter.

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: 'Revoke one OIDC trust relationship' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like fossa_create_oidc_trust_relationship, fossa_update_oidc_trust_relationship, and fossa_get_oidc_trust_relationship by framing it as the revocation path.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('revocation path for a leaked or over-broad grant') and gives an alternative action ('Read it with fossa_get_oidc_trust_relationship first if it may need to be recreated'). This clearly contrasts with the read/get tool and provides concrete guidance.

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