fossa_update_saml_settings

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=false, yet the description states that a wrong call 'breaks SSO for every user' and can 'hand them the organization,' which is a destructive impact. This is a direct contradiction, so the score is 1 and the contradiction flag is set.

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 organized into a concise summary, a high-impact warning section, and a parameter explanation, all in about three short paragraphs. No sentence is wasted; it packs essential risk and semantics without fluff.

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?

Despite the absence of return-value details (covered by the output schema), the description addresses prerequisites, irreversible consequences, the lack of a read-back endpoint, and parameter semantics. This is complete for a high-risk write operation, exceeding the minimum needed.

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 compensates fully by explaining each key parameter: entry_point is the IdP SSO URL, cert is the PEM certificate, audience is SP entity ID, role-management fields control authority, and organization_id falls back to FOSSA_ORG_ID. It adds behavioral nuance beyond the schema, such as the fact that the three required fields are always sent.

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 opens with 'Replace the organization's SAML single sign-on configuration,' a specific verb-resource pair that clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like fossa_delete_saml_settings. The scope is explicit: it replaces, not merges, the configuration.

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 strong contextual guidance, warning that this is a replacement used for organization-wide login and that permissions (FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES, FOSSA_ALLOW_ADMIN) are required. It advises capturing current settings from the web app because no read API exists, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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