saas_api_enable_saas_location_deprecated

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries some burden to explain mutation behavior. It adds one meaningful behavioral note: the auth token requirement. However, it does not describe side effects, reversibility, or what happens on success. This is a partial disclosure beyond annotations, meeting a baseline but lacking depth.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and then states the key requirement. It avoids any wasted words and is easily scanned by an agent. This is an exemplar of conciseness.

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 tool with 12 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is very minimal. It does not explain the purpose of the tool beyond 'enable SaaS' nor the context of the auth requirement. It omits any mention of deprecation or alternative tools, and provides no guidance on the expected outcome. Given the complexity, this is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 92%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, such as explaining the relationship between required parameters (companyId, isSaaSV2) or the optional ones. Since the schema already handles parameter documentation, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Enable SaaS for Sub-Account'. It also clarifies terminology with '(Formerly Location)', which adds precision. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'saas_api_enable_saas_location' (the non-deprecated version), though the name hints at deprecation. This is a clear purpose but lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 a critical usage constraint: 'requires an agency-level token, not a location PIT'. This tells the agent when this tool can be used. However, it does not mention that this is the deprecated version or point to the non-deprecated alternative, nor does it describe any exclusions or conditions beyond the token type. This is useful but incomplete guidance.

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