Update a Scaleway IAM Group

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, idempotent mutation. The description adds value by revealing that the tool explicitly refuses special/managed groups and only modifies passed fields (partial update semantics). This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences, each serving a purpose: the first states what fields change and the partial-update behavior, the second warns about restrictions. No filler or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, scope, and special-case restrictions. While it doesn't describe return values (acceptable given no output schema), it could be improved by mentioning prerequisites like group existence or authentication 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 only 25% (only group_id has a description). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema's field names and types. For a 4-parameter tool, this is insufficient – the description should explain constraints like description maxLength or tag semantics to help the agent construct valid calls.

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 uses specific verbs ('Change' and 'Refuses') to state the tool modifies an IAM group's name/description/tags. It clearly distinguishes this update operation from sibling tools like 'scaleway_iam_update_application' or 'scaleway_iam_update_user' by targeting the 'Group' resource explicitly.

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 'Only passed fields change', implying a partial update pattern, and warns that Scaleway-managed/special groups are refused tool-side. However, no explicit alternative tool is named for modifying those restricted groups, and there is no guidance on when to use this versus other update tools like 'scaleway_iam_update_policy'.

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