Update a Scaleway IAM User

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: partial update semantics ('Only passed fields change') and API-side validation behavior for invalid fields. It does not contradict the annotations, which already indicate non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior.

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 a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It loses a point because the phrase 'name/email where the API allows' is slightly ambiguous given the schema exposes first_name/last_name and no email parameter.

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 description covers core update semantics and validation, and the schema richly documents the tags replacement behavior. However, it lacks any mention of return values, required permissions, or how this differs from the username/password update tools, leaving the tool somewhat incomplete for an agent navigating a large sibling set.

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 only 25%, but the tags parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema itself. The description adds useful cross-parameter semantics like partial updates and validation, but it mentions 'email' which is not in the schema, and does not clarify first_name/last_name beyond their obvious property names.

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 this tool updates a User's mutable profile fields, naming tags and name/email. It is more specific than a tautology and generally distinguishes from username/password update siblings, though it doesn't explicitly call out first_name/last_name as the exact schema fields.

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 some context (only passed fields change, invalid fields rejected) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools like scaleway_iam_update_user_username or scaleway_iam_update_user_password. The usage boundary must be inferred.

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