saas_api_update_rebilling_deprecated

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

The description adds a key behavioral constraint beyond annotations: the token requirement. Since annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, they don't mention auth. The description reveals an operational prerequisite that could prevent failed calls. It doesn't mention deprecation status (only in name) or other side effects, but the auth note adds meaningful 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, front-loaded with the most important non-obvious information (the token requirement). It avoids redundancy with the schema and is to the point. While brief, it's efficiently structured without unnecessary words.

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 description doesn't mention that this is a deprecated endpoint or point to the non-deprecated alternative, which could lead an agent to select it unknowingly. It also doesn't describe expected return values or success criteria, though the schema clarifies inputs. Overall, it provides enough to make a call but omits important contextual warnings about deprecation and alternative tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (companyId, product, locationIds, config) having descriptive text. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information; it only mentions token types, which is an auth requirement rather than a parameter detail. Hence, baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameter meanings effectively.

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 action ('Update Rebilling') on a specific resource, and the name reinforces it. It doesn't explicitly say what rebilling is or list the fields, but the intended purpose is unambiguous. Differentiation from siblings is weak because the non-deprecated saas_api_update_rebilling exists without any qualifier, but the deprecated suffix in the name hints at that 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 includes one critical usage guideline: it requires an agency-level token, not a location PIT. This tells the agent when the tool is usable in terms of auth context. However, it does not advise preferring the non-deprecated sibling or explain scenarios where this deprecated version should be used, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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