Update the Organization's SAML SSO configuration

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

The description extensively discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: the org-wide blast radius, potential to lock everyone out, risks to console-based recovery, and the need for pre-verification. It also warns that the PATCH call was not live-verified. This far exceeds the annotation signals (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) that merely hint at high impact.

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 front-loads the core purpose but becomes verbose with warnings and procedural notes. Sentences like 'PATCH call itself was not live-verified (deliberately - see docs/gotchas.md)' add important context but could be trimmed or moved to a separate note to improve 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 destructive mutation tool with high impact, the description covers risks, prerequisites, and fallback measures. However, it does not describe the expected output or response format (no output schema exists). The absence of success/error indicators is a minor gap, but the safety-critical information is well addressed.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter (confirm, entity_id, single_sign_on_url). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond re-stating the confirm requirement, which is already explicit in the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the specific action ('Change the registered identity provider's entity_id/SSO URL') using a specific verb ('change') and resource ('entity_id/SSO URL'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like scaleway_iam_enable_saml and scaleway_iam_disable_saml.

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 explicit guidance: verify IdP configuration before calling, keep a non-SAML login method as fallback, and require confirm=true. It also contrasts with the enable operation (PATCH vs POST). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or list alternative tools for related tasks.

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