fossa_set_snippet_rejection

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

The description goes far beyond annotations. It explains the required environment flags (FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES, FOSSA_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE), the filter-vs-list semantics, the dangerous path='/' behavior, and how rejected=False reverses the action. This adds critical context for a destructive operation that annotations only hint at.

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 a compact paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then flows naturally into safety requirements and filter semantics. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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?

For a dangerous, filter-based tool with 10 parameters, the description covers the core semantics, safety tiers, and reversal behavior. It leaves some parameters unexplained, but the output schema covers return values, and the description's warnings about destructive behavior are sufficient for an agent to avoid catastrophic misuse.

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 coverage, the description compensates by explaining the key filter parameters: path ('path="/" with nothing else rejects every snippet match'), snippet_ids/package_ids ('naming ids keeps the target set visible'), and rejected ('Set rejected=False to reverse'). It does not explain all 10 params (e.g., search, package_labels, vendored_match), but the most important ones are covered.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Reject snippet matches so FOSSA stops counting them, or unreject ones that were rejected before.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's mutation purpose from sibling snippet tools like fossa_list_snippets and fossa_get_snippet by focusing on changing rejection state.

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?

It provides clear when-to-use context: 'Rejecting is how a false-positive snippet match is dismissed, and it suppresses the licensing issues that match raised.' It also gives practical guidance on narrowing the filter (naming ids vs. using path='/') and requires the destructive tier for unnarrowed calls. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but this is a unique operation.

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