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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds nothing beyond the redundant POST verb. It does not disclose auth requirements, whether repeat submissions of the same factor are accepted, what the session state becomes, or any failure semantics.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and the endpoint appended as a low-cost routing aid. No filler, though it is arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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?

A mutation tool with a free-form body, no output schema, and no explanation of what a 'factor' is (TOTP, push, signature?), what valid factor values exist, or what the response returns. Annotations carry the safety profile, but the description leaves the agent guessing about the request contract.

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 reported at 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds nothing about the id path segment or factor payload. This is arguably worse than baseline because the body parameter is documented only as 'See the AffixIO OpenAPI schema resource for the contract', but the schema itself carries the formal contract.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Submit a factor to a multifactor gate session') and even pins the endpoint POST /v1/gate/multifactor/:id/factor. It is distinguishable from affix_gate_multifactor_start/get/complete, though it never explicitly says how it differs from those siblings.

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?

Placement in the multifactor flow is only implied by 'a multifactor gate session' – an agent can infer this is a mid-flow submission, but there is no statement of prerequisites (must a session be started first?) or of when to prefer complete/get instead.

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