Create Scaleway API Key

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

The description extensively discloses behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide: it reveals that secret_key is returned only once and cannot be recovered, that the key is immediately active, and that each call mints a real credential. Annotations only show readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, which are vague; the description compensates fully with specific, actionable warnings about irreversibility and active credential creation.

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: it starts with the core purpose, immediately follows with the critical one-time retrieval warning, then provides usage guidelines and parameter context. Every sentence adds unique value—no repetition or fluff. The warning about capturing the secret_key is front-loaded, which is appropriate for a high-stakes 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the response contains (access_key + secret_key pair) and the critical post-call requirement (capture immediately). It covers all 4 parameters with actionable guidance, addresses idempotency concerns, and provides usage context relative to other IAM tools. The description leaves no significant gaps for an AI agent to make a mistake.

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%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema: for expires_at, it explains the trade-off between omitting it (durable operational credential) vs. setting a short expiry (throwaway key). For default_project_id, it clarifies that this is required specifically for S3-compatible API calls. For description, it notes this is the only way to identify keys later in the console. These semantic enrichments are crucial for correct parameter selection.

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 generates an API key (access_key + secret_key pair) for an Application, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like scaleway_iam_list_api_keys (listing) and scaleway_iam_update_api_key/scaleway_iam_delete_api_key (management of existing keys) by emphasizing creation and the critical one-time retrieval behavior.

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 on when to use this tool and critical caveats: it instructs the caller to capture the secret_key immediately (e.g., write to env file or secret manager), warns against calling it speculatively since each call creates an immediately-active credential, and contrasts durable operational credentials (omit expires_at or use long expiry) with throwaway/bootstrap keys (should have short expiry). This effectively tells the AI agent how and when to use it responsibly.

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