fossa_delete_projects

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral details: deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, it writes to FOSSA, and it explicitly excludes the dangerous `locators=all` mode. These are value-added safety disclosures not present in annotations.

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 concise, with the primary purpose in the first sentence and supporting safety details in short, focused sentences. Every sentence adds meaningful context without redundancy or 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?

For a destructive batch deletion tool, the description covers all essential aspects: permanence, required env vars, locator format, batch capability, and the explicitly unsupported `all` mode. Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. It is complete for safe and correct invocation.

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?

With only one parameter and low schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that values must be locators, not human-readable names. Although it doesn't name `project_locators` explicitly, it explains the required format and semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic 'array of strings.'

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 opens with 'Permanently delete several named projects in one call,' which precisely states the action, the resource (projects), and the batching scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like fossa_delete_project (singular) by emphasizing 'several' and 'in one call.'

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 warns about the unsafe `locators=all` mode being unavailable, which is crucial for safe usage. It also states the required environment variables, but it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'for a single project, use fossa_delete_project'), leaving the batch usage guidance somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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