fossa_delete_package_labels

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses that environment variables FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES and FOSSA_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE must be set, and explains that deletion removes the label everywhere it is assigned across all packages, projects, and revisions. This adds important non-obvious behavioral context.

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 succinct, front-loaded with the core action, and uses two additional sentences for prerequisites and critical warnings. Every sentence adds value without verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers prerequisites, the destructive scope, and an alternative, making it complete for a complex mutation 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?

The input schema only lists 'label_ids' with no description, and the description does not explain the parameter beyond implying that these IDs refer to the label definitions to delete. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it remains implicit.

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 'Permanently delete one or more package label definitions' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by mentioning the alternative for removing a label without destroying it, making the purpose 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 explicitly says to use fossa_unassign_package_labels instead when the goal is to remove a label from a single package without destroying the definition. It also warns about the large blast radius, giving clear context on when this tool is appropriate.

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