fossa_update_revision

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

The description explicitly discloses that this tool writes to FOSSA and requires FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true, going beyond the annotations. It also explains partial update semantics and that analysis results are unaffected, providing valuable 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The added sentences about write requirements and partial update behavior are high-value and non-redundant.

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?

With an output schema present and only five parameters, the description covers purpose, write safety, and behavioral nuances. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description names the three mutable fields (link, url, author) and explains that only passed fields are sent. This adds meaningful semantic detail. The locator parameters are not explained but their names and required status in the schema reduce ambiguity.

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 clearly states the specific verb 'update' and the resource 'revision's metadata', listing the editable fields (link, url, author). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fossa_update_project or fossa_update_release_group.

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 implies when to use this tool (updating revision metadata) and clarifies that it edits provenance rather than analysis results. It does not explicitly reference alternatives, but the resource scoping makes the intended use clear.

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