Clone Scaleway IAM Policy

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations. It reveals a critical gotcha about the Scaleway CLONE endpoint ignoring the request body and returning an unattached policy, and explains that the tool works around this by following up with a PATCH to restore principal and tags. This expected behavior is not captured by the annotations (which only indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, not idempotent, and open world), so the description provides essential behavioral context. No contradiction.

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 well-structured with front-loaded core purpose, followed by key usage details, a major gotcha, and a follow-up accuracy note. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff. It is appropriately verbose for the complexity of the tool's behavior.

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?

Given the tool's 1 parameter, zero output schema, and the complex behavioral nuance (APi workaround), the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool does, why this behavior is non-obvious, and notes potential misleading response fields (nb_rules/nb_permission_sets) with a suggestion to verify via scaleway_iam_list_policy_rules. No additional information seems needed for an AI agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single required parameter policy_id. The description does not explicitly explain what policy_id is, but the tool name and context make it clear that it's the ID of the policy to clone. A brief note on the parameter's format (UUID) is present in the schema, and the description's deep context about behavior adds value. Could be improved by explicitly stating that policy_id is the source policy's UUID.

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 clones an IAM policy with verb 'Clone' and resource 'an existing IAM Policy'. It specifies exactly what is copied (rules, principal, tags) and how the name is handled, distinguishing it from other sibling tools like scaleway_iam_create_policy and scaleway_iam_update_policy.

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 tells when to use this tool (to get a true clone that matches the source) and warns about the underlying API's buggy behavior. It also provides a clear alternative for renaming (scaleway_iam_update_policy) and mentions that renaming is always safe since nothing references a Policy by name, giving excellent usage guidance.

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