Create Scaleway IAM Application

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

Annotations already indicate a modifier (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive creation (destructiveHint=false). The description adds significant behavioral context: it clarifies that the creation produces an identity with zero permissions, and it discloses the return value (application id). This goes beyond what annotations convey, though it omits details like rate limits or eventual consistency.

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 two sentences: first states the purpose and type, second states the critical limitation and next steps. It is front-loaded and efficient. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., explicit return value mention), but it conveys all essential information without waste.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return value and the next steps. It covers the core purpose, scope, and workflow. It does not mention prerequisites like authentication or permissions, nor error cases, but these are often implicit. The sibling tools list provides additional context for chaining operations.

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% (both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema). The tool-level description does not add new semantic information about the parameters themselves; it only mentions the return value. The schema already provides naming conventions and constraints, so the description meets the baseline but adds minimal additional param value.

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 specifies 'Create a new IAM Application (a non-human identity) in this Organization.' It distinguishes this tool from user creation or other identity tools among siblings by explicitly stating it is for non-human identities. It also clarifies that it only creates the identity without permissions, setting clear boundaries.

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 states that the application has no permissions until a policy is attached, and names the specific follow-up tool (scaleway_iam_create_policy). It provides clear next-step guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternative approaches (e.g., using groups), which keeps it from a 5.

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