fossa_share_sbom_revision

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

Goes well beyond annotations: 'WRITES TO FOSSA. Requires FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true' clarifies the mutation context. The one-way disclosure warning ('vendored spec documents no endpoint to withdraw it, so treat it as one-way') adds critical side-effect information not visible in annotations. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: first states the purpose, then the write prerequisite, then the irreversibility warning, then parameter clarification and constraints. No filler, logically ordered, and appropriately sized for 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?

Covers key operational constraints: write-token requirement, feature flag, one-way nature, and the exact source for the shared_organization_id. With an output schema present, return-value details are not needed. Slight gaps: no mention of error conditions or what happens if the link is invalid, but overall the description is strong for a 2-parameter mutating tool.

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 does explain the trickiest parameter (shared_organization_id) by distinguishing it from an organization id and pointing to a source. However, revision_id is only implied by context and lacks guidance on how to obtain or format it, leaving a minor gap.

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+resource: 'Share one SBOM project revision with another organization.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like fossa_get_sbom_sharing (which reads sharing links) and other revision tools. The resource and action are unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Only revisions of SBOM projects can be shared' (exclusion) and 'the organization needs the sbomSharing feature flag' (prerequisite). It also directs users to fossa_get_sbom_sharing(section='linked_organizations') to obtain the correct shared_organization_id, serving as a companion-tool reference.

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