Create a Scaleway IAM Group

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (which only mark openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false). It explicitly states the operation is non-destructive (fully reversible), idempotent in effect despite no idempotentHint, and discloses the uniqueness lag behavior. This is valuable for decision-making.

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 dense, focused sentences. It front-loads the core action (create empty group) and packs essential guidance (reversibility, no permissions, naming constraints, uniqueness pitfall) without any filler.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core mechanics (empty group, reversible, naming constraints) and a known edge case (uniqueness lag). It does not describe the return value or group ID structure, but given the low complexity (3 obvious params), the coverage is sufficient for an agent to use the 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for documenting parameters. It mentions the 'name' requirement (required, unique, max 64 chars) but does not describe 'tags' or 'description' parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds some but not full compensation for zero schema coverage.

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 it creates a new, empty IAM Group, which is distinct from the many sibling tools. It explicitly says the group is empty with no permissions until members or policies are added, making the purpose precise and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (to start building a group from scratch) and warns about a uniqueness lag when re-creating deleted group names. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative approaches like using scaleway_iam_update_group or scaleway_iam_create_application for similar identity creation tasks.

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