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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two genuinely useful traits: the seed is encrypted and it is not returned. It omits other important behavior — whether an existing seed for the same site is overwritten, what permissions or session state are required, and what errors occur on duplicate or invalid seeds.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the encryption/non-return guarantee placed immediately after the core action. Nothing in it is redundant.

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 secret-writing mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials (what is stored, that it's encrypted and not echoed back) but leaves gaps an agent would care about: overwrite semantics, auth requirements, and failure modes.

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 33% (only identity_id is described in the schema), so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for seed (base32 or an otpauth:// URI), which the schema only types as a 1-2048 char string, but 'site' remains ambiguous — URL, hostname, or arbitrary label — and identity_id is only covered by the schema.

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?

A specific verb plus resource: 'Store an authenticator (TOTP) seed for a site,' with the two accepted seed formats (base32 or otpauth:// URI) spelled out. The write-side purpose is self-evidently distinct from the sibling read tools get_authenticator_code and fill_code, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it holds a TOTP seed to persist. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. an active session/identity), and no stated alternative for related flows.

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