fossa_delete_organization_label

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

Despite annotations already marking destructiveHint and idempotentHint, the description adds crucial behavioral context: the label is removed from every project carrying it, the change is permanent, and environment variable requirements (FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES, FOSSA_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE) are disclosed. This goes beyond annotations to convey the breadth of impact.

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 five sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then provides necessary warnings and constraints. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition of schema or annotation information.

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 prerequisites (env vars), side effects (removed from every project), pre-check recommendation (list labels), plan restrictions (premium), and scope (projects only lose the tag). An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. This is comprehensive for a simple destructive tool.

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?

Schema coverage for label_id is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It only refers to 'this id' without explaining what label_id is, where to find it, or its format. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional semantic value beyond the schema's basic type and name.

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: 'Permanently delete an organization label.' The verb 'delete' and resource 'organization label' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fossa_create_organization_label and fossa_list_organization_labels.

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 gives explicit pre-usage guidance: 'Check fossa_list_organization_labels with this id first' to see affected projects, which serves as a safety check. It also notes the premium plan restriction and clarifies that projects are not otherwise affected, preventing misuse.

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