Disable SAML SSO for the Organization

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only, which is consistent with the description. The description goes beyond annotations by revealing that the tool internally fetches the SAML config ID before performing the delete, explaining lockout risks for users without passwords, and confirming the working endpoint via live probe. This provides critical behavioral transparency for a dangerous operation.

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 relatively concise given the complex behavioral information it covers, including the endpoint probe detail. However, the live-probe sentence is lengthy and could be slightly restructured for readability. Every sentence is earned, but clarity could be improved with minor rephrasing.

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 tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and is a high-risk destructive operation. The description covers the prerequisite (`confirm=true`), consequences (permanent removal, lockout risk), implementation detail (fetches config ID), and endpoint behavior. This fully addresses the complexity and risk level, leaving no gaps for an AI agent to misuse the tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly linking `confirm=true` to the permanent removal action and mandatory safety step, which reinforces the schema's const=true constraint but does not add entirely new semantics. Slightly above baseline due to the strong safety emphasis.

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 tool permanently removes the organization's SAML SSO configuration, which uses a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like scaleway_iam_enable_saml and scaleway_iam_update_saml by focusing on disabling, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly requires `confirm=true`, warns of permanent destruction, and explains the fallback and lockout consequences. It also includes a live-probe finding about the correct endpoint, which prevents incorrect usage (e.g., using the org-nested path that returns 405). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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