fossa_manage_role

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that passing 'permissions' on update replaces the entire list, that scope is immutable after creation, and that deletion is refused for built-in roles or roles still assigned to users. This goes well beyond the basic readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations and provides no contradictions.

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 dense yet well-structured, with a clear first sentence, a block for write prerequisites, action-specific parameter breakdowns, and a dedicated paragraph for permissions behavior and edge cases. No sentence is wasted; the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers all essential operational context: purpose, prerequisites, parameter usage, replacement semantics, immutability, and deletion restrictions. It references fossa_list_roles for valid permissions and handles edge cases, making it fully complete for an agent to use the tool correctly. Output schema exists, so return value documentation is not required.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's role in the context of each action: scope values ('organization'/'team'), role_id for update/delete, name/description/permissions for create/update, and the structure of permissions entries. It also clarifies which parameters are needed for each action, making the schema's defaults and nullability interpretable.

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 'Create, update, or delete a custom FOSSA role,' which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like team management or project tools. It also specifies that it handles all three actions in one tool and focuses on custom roles, differentiating from built-in roles.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance for each action (create, update, delete), including required parameters for each. It mentions prerequisites (FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES, FOSSA_ALLOW_ADMIN, FOSSA_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE) and points to fossa_list_roles for valid permissions, helping the agent choose correctly. It also explains restrictions on deleting built-in or assigned roles.

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