fossa_queue_release_group_attribution_report

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description adds significant behavioral context: it explicitly states 'WRITES TO FOSSA' and the environment variable requirement, explains the side effects of creating a job and making the report visible when is_publishing is set, and notes it returns a task id to poll. No contradictions with 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 concise and well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then warns about write requirements and side effects, and ends with a direct comparison to the read-only alternative. Every sentence adds necessary information without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (17 parameters, mutation, background job, output schema present), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the async nature, the side effects, the gating condition, and the polling mechanism. With an output schema available, return value details are not needed, and the description covers all critical operational aspects.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it only discusses the is_publishing parameter's effect. The 17 parameters, including dependency_info_options and various include_* flags, are left to their self-explanatory names and schema titles. This provides minimal added value over the raw schema.

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 queues an attribution or SBOM report for a release group as a background job, with an optional publish action. It uses a specific verb ('Queue') and identifies the resource ('attribution or SBOM report for one release in a FOSSA release group'), and distinguishes itself by explicitly contrasting with fossa_get_release_group_attribution_report for read-only needs.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: when you want to queue a background job and optionally publish to the SBOM portal. It also gives a clear alternative for read-only scenarios: 'For a report you just want to read, fossa_get_release_group_attribution_report returns the content directly and writes nothing.' This directly addresses usage vs. alternatives.

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