fossa_request_fossabot_upgrade_pr

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description adds critical behavioral details: requires FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true, opens a real PR, is asynchronous with a `creating` response, returns existing state for duplicate requests, and consumes fossabot credits for retry_analysis.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by warnings and parameter details in three concise paragraphs. Every sentence adds value 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 and the presence of annotations, the description covers async behavior, real-world side effects, idempotency behavior, and resource consumption. However, it omits explanation of `project_locator`, which is a minor completeness gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains `fix` and `retry_analysis`, but doesn't mention `project_locator` at all and only implicitly references `issue_id`. This leaves a gap for the remaining parameters.

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 action: asking fossabot to open a dependency-upgrade pull request or re-run analysis on an existing PR. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fossa_get_fossabot_upgrade_pr (which tracks) and fossa_list_fossabot_upgrade_prs (which lists).

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 explicitly points to fossa_get_fossabot_upgrade_pr as the tracking alternative and explains when to set retry_analysis=True instead. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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