fossa_update_oidc_trust_relationship

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

Disclosures go well beyond the annotations: it warns about write requirements (FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES, FOSSA_ALLOW_ADMIN), explains replacement semantics (lists replace rather than merge), warns that omissions widen authentication, and notes sub wildcard validation. This gives the agent actionable behavioral context.

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 front-loaded, moving from purpose to prerequisites to behavioral specifics. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, with no redundant 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?

The description covers prerequisites, update limitations, replacement semantics, and a validation rule, and the output schema handles return-value details. A minor gap is the ambiguous behavior when passing null vs. omitting the list parameters, which is not clarified for the agent.

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 by explaining that audiences and required_claims are the updatable fields and that each list replaces the stored list. It also adds validation detail about sub wildcards. However, it leaves trust_relationship_id and the internal structure of required_claims objects mostly implicit.

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: "Change which tokens an existing OIDC trust relationship accepts." It clearly distinguishes this from sibling create/get/delete tools by emphasizing "existing" and scoping updates to audiences and required_claims.

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 states when to use the tool (to update an existing OIDC trust relationship) and provides clear limitations: only audiences and required_claims can be updated, user/provider are fixed at creation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like create_oidc_trust_relationship, so it stops short of a 5.

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