saas_api_bulk_disable_saas_deprecated

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, and non-destructive, which the description aligns with. The addition of the token requirement is valuable context beyond the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on the effects of disabling SaaS (e.g., whether subscriptions are paused), which would enhance transparency.

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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the action, target, and a critical requirement. It is free of fluff and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 essential calling information is present: action, params, and authentication requirement. However, it lacks a deprecation notice and any indication of side effects or return behavior. Given the existence of a non-deprecated counterpart, this incomplete context could lead an agent to use an outdated tool without knowing it.

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?

The schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (companyId and locationIds) with 100% coverage, so the schema already explains their meaning. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action and resource: 'Disable SaaS for locations'. It is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the non-deprecated sibling saas_api_bulk_disable_saas, which is a missed differentiation opportunity.

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 gives a necessary authentication requirement (agency-level token) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of deprecation or suggestion to use the newer saas_api_bulk_disable_saas, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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