fossa_update_team

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses write requirements (FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true, FOSSA_ALLOW_ADMIN=true), the partial-update semantics ('Only the fields passed are sent; anything omitted is left as FOSSA has it'), the null-handling nuance for uniqueIdentifier, and the side effect that default_role_id only affects future members. These are valuable behavioral details not present in 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by prerequisites and then nuanced behavior. Every sentence adds critical information—no fluff or repetition. The structure flows logically from what/requirements/behavior.

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 mutation tool with partial-update semantics and a nullable field, the description covers all essential context: purpose, prerequisites, update behavior, null handling, side effects, and an explicit alternative for re-roling. The output schema covers return value details, so nothing is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the meaning of key parameters: it names updatable fields, explains the unique_identifier/clear_unique_identifier relationship, and clarifies default_role_id's scope. It does not deeply explain auto_add_users or the exact format of unique_identifier, but the purpose statement covers enough to infer.

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: 'Update a FOSSA team's name, default role, auto-add setting, or external identifier.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by later stating 'This tool does not change membership' and pointing to fossa_update_team_assignments for role changes.

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 provides explicit guidance: it states when to use this tool (updating team settings) and when to use an alternative ('use fossa_update_team_assignments with action "replace" to re-role existing members'). It also explains the partial-update behavior and the separate switch for clearing unique_identifier, which helps correct tool selection.

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