What displays Discogs is like how we handle old Shellac/Vinyl releases (details at bottom NB.) as they don’t have a front cover (only the credits on two Medias labels)
In this case Bandcamp + Official website (INT005 – Rogue Soul & Syncopix – Be With You / Footage – Integral Records) credit “Zero Tolerance & Alix Perez” so nobody will blame you to keep it as is. On the contrary changing to “Zero Tolerance” would be problematic as it neither follow the Official sources or the MBz guidelines.
Personally I would set the Release Group and Vinyl release as what you see on Discogs. Regarding the Digital release there is more debate since there is the official website. I tend to prefer prioritize guidelines and Physical medias as the data from digital source are not persistent in time (could change when website revamped) and de facto are not reviewed with the same professionalism as the ones from Physical resources (easy to imagine someone saying “Hey, it s OK, nobody cares about that and if the artist complain we can still fix it later”).
For instance their EP INT005 is credited “Rogue Soul & Syncopix” on their website whereas there is no collaboration between the 2 artists (2 different tracks INT005 - Be With You / Footage | Rogue Soul & Syncopix | Integral Records). And without surprise this one was changed with the " / " on MBz Release “Be With You / Footage” by Rogue Soul / Syncopix - MusicBrainz )
So at the end everything like the Vinyl release
Concensus is to rely on " / " and only crediting the main Artists/Titles, this to avoid the “messy” part as you’re pointing (for instance feat. or acc. artists won’t appear on release, only on tracks)
and if you need more, some old labels full of this type of releases: