Delete a Scaleway IAM User's MFA OTP factor

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description goes beyond by labeling the action as 'SECURITY-WEAKENING,' explaining the confirm=true requirement to prevent accidental use, and detailing why enrollment is excluded (half-configured states, live-verified endpoint). This adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 action, followed by warnings and use-case guidance. It is compact with no wasted words, though the last sentence contains internal notes ('flow states unprobed, endpoint shape live-verified 2026-08-18') that may be slightly cryptic for an LLM.

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 covers the action, security impact, required confirmation, legitimate use case, and what is not included. With no output schema and low schema coverage, it provides adequate context for a two-parameter destructive tool. Missing: a brief mention of user_id's format.

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 50% (only confirm has a description). The description reinforces confirm's const=true requirement, which adds value. However, it does not describe user_id (UUID) beyond calling it a 'person,' so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 starts with 'Remove the person's TOTP MFA factor,' which clearly specifies the verb (remove) and resource (TOTP MFA factor). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating that enrollment is not a tool here, and no other sibling deals with MFA OTP.

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 states 'Expected legitimate use: lost authenticator recovery,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It also explicitly warns against using it for enrollment ('Creating/enrolling a new OTP is deliberately NOT a tool here') and explains why, giving strong usage guidance.

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