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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds critical details: success turns on 2FA, recovery codes are returned once, they are the only self-service recovery, and key recovery does not clear 2FA. Error strings are listed. 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 concise (about 100 words), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, inputs, success result with warning, errors. No fluff.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the activation flow, critical warnings, and common errors. It could explicitly state that colony_2fa_enroll must be called first, but that is implied.

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 100% for the three parameters. The description reinforces that secret and ticket come from colony_2fa_enroll and code is generated from secret, which adds slight context but mostly overlaps with schema descriptions.

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 'Activate TOTP 2FA' and specifies that it uses secret, ticket from colony_2fa_enroll and a code. It distinguishes from sibling tools like colony_2fa_enroll (setup) and colony_2fa_disable (turn off) by focusing on activation.

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 explains that inputs must come from colony_2fa_enroll and lists errors like AUTH_2FA_ALREADY_ENABLED, which guides when not to use. However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings like colony_2fa_disable for when to disable instead.

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