Create a SCIM provisioning token

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: the token is returned only once (irretrievable later), requires confirm=true for safety, grants IdP administrative power over users, and includes a FIELD SHAPE UNVERIFIED warning about the description parameter. Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description's mutation warning, so 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 concise at three sentences, with critical warnings front-loaded. The FIELD SHAPE UNVERIFIED note is slightly redundant with the docs reference, but still valuable. Minor markdown-like formatting (bold) could improve scannability but is not required.

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 3 required parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential creation workflow, one-time return behavior, and safety confirm requirement. The FIELD SHAPE UNVERIFIED caveat acknowledges limitations. Slight gap: doesn't mention what happens on success (e.g., response structure) or error cases, but the schema's const on confirm provides sufficient guardrails.

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 100%, and the description adds significant context beyond schema descriptions. It explains the 'confirm' parameter's purpose (acknowledging IdP power), clarifies scim_id comes from scaleway_iam_get_scim_config's id field, and gives an example for description ('e.g. the IdP's name'). The FIELD SHAPE UNVERIFIED caveat also qualifies the description parameter's behavior.

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 generates a new SCIM token, which is a specific resource creation action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scaleway_iam_list_scim_tokens (list) and scaleway_iam_delete_scim_token (delete), though it could more explicitly contrast with enable/disable SCIM operations.

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 warns that the token is returned only once and must be captured immediately and configured in the IdP. It states the confirm=true requirement and explains why ('grants the IdP power to create/modify/deactivate Users'). The FIELD SHAPE UNVERIFIED caveat also sets proper expectations.

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