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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (destructive action) and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that a valid code is required and which errors may occur, offering useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions are present.

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 extremely concise: two sentences front-load the core action ('Turn OFF your TOTP 2FA') and prerequisites, followed by a brief error list. Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete: it covers the action, prerequisites, and error states. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be detailed here. No gaps remain for an agent to select or invoke the tool correctly.

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%: the only parameter 'code' is already well-described in the input schema with details on format and length. The description mentions the code requirement but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Turn OFF your TOTP 2FA' using a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like colony_2fa_enroll or colony_2fa_status by focusing solely on disabling 2FA.

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 specifies the prerequisite of a valid TOTP or recovery code and lists two possible error codes (AUTH_2FA_NOT_ENABLED, AUTH_2FA_INVALID). This provides clear context on when the tool can be used and what to check, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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