Add a SAML certificate

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the org-wide blast radius, lockout risk, requirement for confirm=true, and the unverified field shape (best-effort guess). This adds substantial behavioral context not captured by annotations.

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 long but informative, with warnings and caveats that are necessary for a high-risk tool. It front-loads the purpose but could be more succinct and better structured.

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 high-risk mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, risks, prerequisites, and parameter caveats, providing enough context for the agent to invoke it safely. No return value is specified, but that is not required without an output schema.

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 already covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds a caveat that the 'certificate' field name is a best-effort guess, which is valuable for the agent to know. It also reiterates confirm=true.

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 'Register a new signing certificate for SAML SSO' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like enable_saml, update_saml, and delete_saml_certificate.

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?

It provides context on when to use: when adding a new signing certificate, and includes preconditions like verifying IdP config and keeping a non-SAML fallback. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear.

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