fossa_update_project

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds much more: write requirement, default-to-None semantics, replace vs. merge behavior for two fields, mutual exclusivity of tracking/hidden branches, and that policy/scanning changes trigger a rescan. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures beyond the 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 appropriately sized, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is well-structured with clear paragraphs and no 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 tool with 24 parameters and no schema coverage, the description covers all major caveats: write permission, default semantics, replace-vs-merge fields, mutual exclusivity, and side effects (rescan). An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed.

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 explains the critical default-to-None behavior for all fields and details the replace semantics for label_ids and transitive_excludes, plus mutual exclusivity for branch parameters. It does not describe every individual parameter, but the schema titles are fairly self-explanatory and the most important semantic warnings 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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and identifies the resource ('one project's settings') with enumerated categories (metadata, branches, policy assignments, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fossa_get_project, fossa_delete_project, and fossa_update_revision.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (updating project settings) and provides a prerequisite (FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true). It also advises reading current values with fossa_get_project before using label_ids or transitive_excludes. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but gives clear operational context.

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