Set a Scaleway IAM User's password (admin reset)

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

The description goes beyond annotations by stating the password is supplied by the caller, takes effect immediately, and warns about account-takeover power. It also mentions that session invalidation is unverified. These details are not in the annotations (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: true, etc.) and add valuable behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations is present; the idempotentHint is technically consistent with setting the same password.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the action. It is informative without being overly verbose. Each sentence adds value: action, security implication, parameter guidance, and uncertainty. Minor wordiness (e.g., 'ADMIN-SET password reset:') is acceptable given the sensitivity. The structure is logical and efficient.

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 complexity (security-sensitive mutation, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: what it does, how it works, security implications, and uncertainty about session invalidation. It does not explain error handling or response, but the lack of output schema reduces the need. The description is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior and risks.

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?

The input schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description repeats the password length constraint, adds 'live-probed', and reinforces the confirm requirement. It also provides security guidance about password generation. However, it does not add new semantic meaning for the user_id parameter beyond the schema. The description adds moderate value over the schema, but not enough to raise the score above baseline 3.

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 it is an admin-set password reset for a Scaleway IAM user, using specific verbs ('set') and resource ('Scaleway IAM User's password'). The title adds 'admin reset' for differentiation. Among sibling tools like scaleway_iam_update_user and scaleway_iam_lock_user, this tool's purpose is distinct and unambiguous.

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: it is an admin-set password reset, warns about 'account-takeover-grade power', requires confirm=true, and advises on generating and delivering passwords securely. It also notes the uncertainty about session invalidation. While it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, the unique nature of password reset and the clear security context make the guidelines effective.

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