fossa_save_report_option

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

The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations, such as the write requirement, the ON/OFF switch logic, the deep merge behavior on update, and the note that existing reports are untouched. This complements the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) without contradicting them. Some details like idempotency or response format are not mentioned, but the output schema covers return values.

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 efficiently structured, front-loading the purpose, then the write warning, then the merge semantics. Every sentence earns its place, and the paragraphs are not overly long. The organization makes the distinction between create and update behavior crisp and easy to follow.

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 output schema, return values need not be explained. The description covers the essential write semantics, switch grouping, merge behavior, and the distinction from report generation. However, it leaves some ambiguity around 'all four groups' (not enumerated) and how updates are triggered (implied via `report_option_id`), which are minor gaps in an otherwise thorough explanation.

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 zero schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It explicitly explains `sections` and `dependency_data` (ON/OFF switches, empty list meaning), and the general rule that omitted groups are not sent. However, it doesn't detail `exclude_package_labels`, `use_hash_and_version_data`, or explicitly state that `report_option_id` triggers an update, though these are partially inferable from names and context.

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 function: 'Create a saved report option preset, or update an existing one.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like delete_report_option and list_report_options. The additional note 'This changes a preset, not a report' further clarifies its scope and prevents confusion with report generation 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 clear context on when to use the tool, including the prerequisite 'Requires FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true' and the distinction between create (requires all four groups plus a name) and update (deep merge behavior for omitted groups). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving the differentiation to the reader to infer.

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