fossa_update_team_group_assignments

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description adds significant behavioral detail: it warns about non-atomicity for multi-team removals, clarifies that removing a team does not delete it, explains that 'replace' on users removes everyone else, and lists permission requirements. This far exceeds the annotation signal.

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 well-organized: a one-sentence overview, then requirements, then per-target details. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It is structured and front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 tool is reasonably complex (5 params, 2 enums, no schema descriptions, but has output schema). The description covers all essential aspects: purpose, permissions, parameter semantics, non-atomicity, and side effects. The output schema handles return values, so no need to describe those. It is complete for an agent to invoke 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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It clearly maps 'team_ids' to the 'teams' target, explains that 'users' expects objects with 'id' and (for add/replace) 'roleId', and delineates which actions support each target. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's function: 'Change what is assigned to a FOSSA team group: the teams it contains, or its members.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fossa_update_team_assignments by focusing on team group assignments.

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 clear context on when to use this tool, including required environment variables and which actions require destructive permissions. It explains the two targets (teams/users) and their supported actions, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or provide 'when-not' scenarios, stopping 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.