fossa_delete_report_option

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

Beyond the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations, the description adds critical behavior: it writes to FOSSA, requires specific environment variables, affects the whole organization, and does not affect previously generated reports. This gives the agent a clear understanding of side effects and scope, which is exactly what transparency requires.

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 three brief paragraphs: the action, required environment variables, and side-effect scope. Each sentence adds value with no fluff, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it deletes, prerequisites, and side effects. It falls short of a 5 only because it does not explicitly clarify what report_option_id refers to, though the name and context make it reasonably clear.

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 one parameter, report_option_id, with no description (0% coverage). The description does not explain this parameter or how to obtain the ID, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name alone. Since schema coverage is low and the description does not compensate, this dimension scores low.

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 'Delete a saved report option preset,' which clearly identifies the action (delete) and the resource (report option preset). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fossa_save_report_option (create/update) and fossa_list_report_options (read).

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 makes the use case obvious: deleting a saved preset. It also provides context about requirements (FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES and FOSSA_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE) and warns about organizational scope. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for listing or saving presets, so it falls short of a 5.

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