Create/invite a Scaleway IAM User

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses that a real email is sent, that the semantics are unverified, and that the `type` field default was inferred. This adds critical behavioral context about side effects and uncertainty, which annotations alone do not provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds necessary warnings and caveats. While three paragraphs are slightly verbose, each sentence contributes to transparency or usage guidance. No wasted words.

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?

The description lacks information about the return value or expected response (e.g., user ID, confirmation). No output schema exists, so the description should have covered what the agent receives on success. It also does not address idempotency implications (e.g., multiple calls with the same email will send multiple emails). The unverified warning honestly admits gaps, but completeness is still moderate.

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?

The schema already covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds nuance: the constraint 'Requires confirm=true' reinforces the schema's const, and the note on the `type` default being 'inferred, unverified' provides extra context beyond the schema's default and description. Tags remain undescribed, but overall the description adds marginal 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 states 'Create a human User by email,' specifying the verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scaleway_iam_create_application or scaleway_iam_create_api_key, which create different IAM resources. The title reinforces the dual action of creating and inviting.

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 'never call speculatively' and states 'Requires confirm=true,' providing clear usage constraints. However, it does not directly compare this tool to alternatives (e.g., creating an application for non-human users), though the purpose inherently differentiates it. The warning about real email delivery is a strong guideline.

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