Update Scaleway IAM Policy

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (write operation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), and idempotentHint=true (safe to repeat). The description aligns and adds detail: it explicitly states the mutation scope (which fields change), assures safety of renaming, and explains the patch-like behavior (only passed fields change). While no output schema exists, the description covers the return implications adequately for this use case.

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 a single paragraph with no wasted sentences. It front-loads the purpose, immediately clarifies what's excluded, then provides the safety rationale and patch behavior in three concise sentences. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 that this tool has 4 parameters (1 required), 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the mutation scope, safety, tag format constraints and replacement semantics, and patch behavior. There is no missing information that would prevent correct usage.

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 50% (tags and name have descriptions, policy_id and description do not). The description adds significant value beyond the schema: it clarifies the tags replacement behavior ('pass the complete set'), validates the tag key format with examples and a regex constraint, and warns about API rejection of colons. The name parameter's schema description points to another tool's description, but the tool description confirms the naming convention is covered elsewhere.

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 ('rename/re-describe/re-tag') and clearly identifies the resource ('existing IAM Policy'). It explicitly distinguishes what the tool does from what it does NOT touch (rules, application_id, principal/permission fields), making it easy to differentiate from siblings like scaleway_iam_set_policy_rules or scaleway_iam_clone_policy.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (only for name/description/tags changes) and what not to expect (no permission or principal changes). It also gives a safety note that renaming is always safe since nothing references a policy by name, and clarifies that only passed fields are changed while omitted fields remain as-is.

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