fossa_generate_project_attribution_slug

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that regenerating replaces the existing slug (breaking shared links), requiring FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true, needing a Premium subscription, and returning the slug as a bare JSON string. This adds valuable behavioral context that the annotations do not convey, such as the specific destructive effect and authentication conditions.

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, using three sentences that each add essential information: main purpose, write requirement and side effect, and response format. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids redundant filler.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, side effects, prerequisites, and return value. It is slightly incomplete in not explaining project_locator format, but overall provides enough context for an agent to use 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the only parameter, project_locator. However, the description never mentions project_locator or its expected format (e.g., how to construct the locator). The parameter name is self-referential but does not provide sufficient guidance for correct usage.

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 a specific action ('Create or regenerate the slug in the URL of a project's live attribution report') with a clear resource (the slug). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fossa_create_public_attribution_report, which likely creates the report itself rather than just the slug.

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 clear context for use: it requires FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true and a Premium subscription, and it warns that regenerating breaks previously shared links. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but it establishes prerequisites and consequences, which is sufficient guidance for a write operation.

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