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

The description reveals key behavioral traits: nothing is persisted, and the tool returns a signed ticket for confirmation. It also documents the error condition. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent and add no contradiction, but the description adds significant behavioral context beyond 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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is efficient and avoids redundancy.

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 zero parameters and an output schema (present from context), the description fully explains the tool's return values and the sequence needed to complete 2FA enrolment. It is complete and actionable.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. Per guidelines, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. No additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Begin TOTP enrolment.' It identifies the outputs (secret, otpauth_uri, ticket) and explicitly notes that nothing is persisted, distinguishing it from colony_2fa_confirm which actually enables 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 provides explicit step-by-step usage: feed secret to a TOTP library, then call colony_2fa_confirm with secret, ticket, and generated code. It also mentions a specific error (AUTH_2FA_ALREADY_ENABLED) to guide when not to use.

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