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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a precondition (requires signed-in session) and required authentication material (password plus current/recovery code), which is useful security context. However, it omits reversibility, consequences of disabling MFA, and token/session implications.

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 compact sentences. The precondition is front-loaded before the authentication requirements. The final sentence about SAGOT staff is loosely related but adds minimal operational value.

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 2-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and auth inputs but leaves gaps: consequences of disabling, error/rate-limit behavior, and whether the session is affected.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains that 'code' accepts a 'current code or recovery code' and 'password' is the user's password, but doesn't clarify format, length constraints, or which code types map to which sibling tool.

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 specific verb (disable) and resource (MFA / two-step sign-in) clearly. It's distinguishable from account_mfaEnable, account_mfaSetup, and account_mfaRecoveryCodes by naming the disable action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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?

The phrase 'Signed-in session only' implies a precondition for use but doesn't compare against alternatives or state when not to use. The SAGOT staff sentence is vague context rather than actionable guidance.

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