fossa_delete_project_attribution_slug

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

The description significantly adds to the annotations by specifying environment variable requirements (FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true, FOSSA_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true), the consequence of removing access for link holders, and the guarantee that only the slug is deleted while project and scan history remain untouched. This goes well beyond the simple destructiveHint annotation.

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 four concise sentences, each providing unique and essential information. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes necessary warnings and side effects without any redundant text.

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 comprehensively covers the tool's purpose, side effects, prerequisites, and safety guarantees. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. A minor gap is the lack of guidance on the project_locator parameter, but overall the description is reasonably complete for a single-parameter 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the format or meaning of 'project_locator' beyond implying it refers to a project. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but no concrete guidance on how to construct or obtain the locator is provided.

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 uses specific verb 'remove' and identifies the exact resource (slug from a project's live attribution report URL). This clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'fossa_generate_project_attribution_slug' which performs the opposite action.

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 clearly states the effect ('takes the shared report offline') which indicates when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or cases where it should not be used, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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