fossa_unassign_package_labels

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations by stating 'WRITES TO FOSSA' and requiring specific environment variables (FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true, FOSSA_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true). It also scopes the destructive impact by clarifying that only bindings are removed, not label definitions. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) with actionable prerequisites and safety details.

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 front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first line. Warnings are clearly separated, and the parameter clarification is directly under the schema. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers purpose, prerequisites (env vars), parameter source, and the scope of destruction. The output schema is present, so return values are handled elsewhere. All essential context for invoking the tool is provided, making it complete.

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?

The schema provides only the type (array of integers) for `assignment_ids` with no description. The description compensates by explaining that these are 'the `id` values from fossa_list_package_label_assignments' and emphasizing they are assignment IDs, not label IDs. This is crucial for correct usage and goes well beyond what the schema offers.

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 states 'Remove specific package label assignments' with a clear verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates from label deletion by noting 'The label definitions themselves are untouched; only these bindings go away.' This distinguishes the tool from siblings like fossa_delete_package_labels.

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 tells the agent to obtain `assignment_ids` from fossa_list_package_label_assignments, indicating a prerequisite step. It also clarifies when to use this tool—when only assignments should be removed—without deleting labels. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., fossa_set_package_label_assignments) that could also remove assignments, so it's not fully explicit about alternatives.

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