Unlock a Scaleway IAM User

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the operation restores access and is reversible. This is consistent but adds only modest context beyond the annotations, such as no mention of permission requirements or side effects.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. However, it borders on under-specification; a brief note about context (e.g., 'after a user is locked') would improve completeness without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, clear name), the description is largely complete. It states the purpose and relationship to a sibling tool. Missing elements are minor, such as what happens if the user is already unlocked (idempotentHint partially covers this) and authorization requirements.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'user_id' parameter. It does not elaborate on the parameter's meaning, format, or how to obtain it beyond implying it's the UUID of the locked user. This is insufficient for a low-coverage scenario.

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 the action ('Restore a locked User's access') and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling 'lock_user' by calling it the 'reversible counterpart'. This leaves no ambiguity about what resource is affected and what the tool does.

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 use when a user is locked and you want to restore access, and mentions 'lock_user' as the paired operation. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if the user is already unlocked) or provide any prerequisites, which are minimal but would strengthen guidance.

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