fossa_extend_issue_exception

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

The description enriches the annotations by explicitly stating this is a write operation requiring FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true. It also explains the non-obvious null behavior for expires_after, which is meaningful for understanding the side effect of removing an expiry. The premium subscription requirement is an additional operational constraint 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 compact, with three short paragraphs that each add value. It front-loads the main purpose, then covers write requirements, the critical null semantics, and a subscription requirement. No sentence is wasted, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 low-complexity tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: the write operation, the required environment variable, the premium tier, and the distinct null behavior. It doesn't describe return values, but the output schema exists and the tool is simple, so the description is sufficient.

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 no schema descriptions (0% coverage), the description compensates well for expires_after by clarifying that null removes the expiry and a YYYY-MM-DD date sets one. It also notes the absence of a default because null is meaningful. exception_id is not explicitly described, but it is an integer ID and its purpose is evident from the tool's name and description.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Change when an issue exception expires.' It also distinguishes from related sibling tools by explaining the alternative behavior of clearing the expiry entirely. The phrase 'clear the expiry so it never does' uniquely identifies this tool's functionality compared to get/delete exception tools.

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 provides implied usage context (for modifying issue exception expiries) and notes prerequisites like FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true and premium subscription. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, such as 'delete the exception instead' or 'use for exceptions that need a new expiry rather than deletion.' This leaves some ambiguity for an agent selecting among the many issue exception sibling tools.

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