use_sas_config

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

Discloses a critical side effect: 'Ends any current SAS session, so WORK data sets and librefs from the previous configuration are lost.' This goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying exactly what is lost, which is essential for an agent to warn the user or verify intent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the side effect, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place and is highly efficient.

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 single-parameter, destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and side effects. No additional information is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly; the side-effect warning is particularly valuable for safety.

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 by implying the 'name' parameter is the configuration name ('by name', 'names a SAS environment'). It does not explicitly state 'name' is the config name, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer it. Slight deduction for not being fully explicit.

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 specific action (select/connect) on a specific resource (SAS configuration) by name, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_sas_configs (listing) and run_sas (execution). It is not a tautology and provides precise scope.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the user names a SAS environment, or after list_sas_configs shows several.' This gives direct invocation conditions and references a sibling tool for context, making the decision clear without ambiguity.

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