Update the Organization's security settings

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description details the blast radius in both directions: tightening can lock out users, loosening weakens security. It also discloses the partial update mechanism ('Only the fields you pass are changed') and even mentions live-verified behavior. No contradiction with 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 tightly written with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Change org-wide auth policy'), then layers critical warnings and usage notes in a logical sequence. Every sentence adds 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?

No output schema exists, but the description fully covers tool behavior: purpose, scope, partial update semantics, confirm requirement, blast radius, and references to external docs. For a security-impacting mutation tool, this is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity.

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 100%, but the description adds rich meaning: it explains the confirm parameter requirement, ties specific fields (login_attempts_before_locked, enforce_password_renewal) to the described effects, and clarifies that an empty call leaves values untouched. This goes well beyond the schema's bare definitions.

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 opens with 'Change org-wide auth policy,' which is a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('org-wide auth policy'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scaleway_iam_update_user or scaleway_iam_enable_saml, which operate on different scopes or resources.

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 tells when to use this tool by highlighting the org-wide impact and the partial update behavior. It contrasts with 'SAML/SCIM's enable endpoints' and references docs/gotchas.md for alternatives, providing clear when-to and when-not-to guidance.

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