fossa_delete_release_group

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: projects and scan history survive, the release group and releases do not, and there is no undo. It also details the specific permission flags required. This significantly exceeds what annotations convey and does not contradict them.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, requirements, side effects, and alternative. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers purpose, preconditions, side effects, and alternatives. With an output schema present and no return-value expectations, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 is 0% and the description does not explicitly explain the release_group_id parameter. However, the parameter name is highly self-explanatory, and the description clarifies the concept of a release group. The tool's one-parameter simplicity partially compensates, but explicit parameter documentation is missing.

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 states 'Delete a FOSSA release group and every release in it' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool fossa_delete_release_group_release for removing a single release, 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 names the alternative tool for single-release deletion and states required environment variables (FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true and FOSSA_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true) as prerequisites. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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