fossa_update_issues

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

Annotations already signal destructive and non-read-only behavior, but the description adds substantial context: the FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES and FOSSA_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE environment requirements, the broad 'every issue matching the filters' behavior when issue_ids is omitted, and the durable-rule distinction for issueException. It also warns that the affected set is not visible in advance, which is exactly the kind of behavioral trait an agent needs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and well-structured, front-loading the action set and using short paragraphs for safety requirements, selection semantics, and exception-specific constraints. Every sentence adds new information—no filler, no repetition of schema fields or annotations.

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 complex 24-parameter destructive mutation tool, the description covers the critical selection-destructive behavior, required environment variables, the preview workflow, and action-specific parameter constraints. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not necessary, and the description provides sufficient context to invoke the tool safely and correctly.

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 description coverage, the description compensates for the most critical parameters: it clarifies issue_ids (exact vs. omitted set), and maps package_scope, ignore_scope, expires_after, and license_id to the issueException action. It also tells the agent to use the same filter arguments as fossa_list_issues, which offloads semantics to a sibling. However, many of the 24 filter parameters are not individually described, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 phrase: 'Ignore, unignore, unlink, or create a reusable exception for a set of issues,' naming the exact actions and resource. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by clarifying the durable exception behavior and explicitly excluding ticket export, so the agent knows what this tool does and does not do.

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 tells the agent to run fossa_list_issues with the same arguments first to preview the affected set, and clearly states when the destructive gate applies (FOSSA_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE required when issue_ids is omitted). It also explains that issueException-specific parameters only apply to that action and that ticket export is not offered, providing direct 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.