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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by specifying what is destroyed: the authenticator app and backup codes, plus the recovery path that the user can enrol again.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the action and scope, and includes only information that earns its place: the lost-phone context and re-enrolment note.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential effect and recovery expectation. Minor details such as immediate session invalidation are not stated, but the key agent-facing information is present.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents user_id as the caller's own id for the user. The description adds no further parameter-level semantics, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: remove a user's authenticator app and backup codes. It clearly distinguishes the action from read-oriented siblings like get_authenticator, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or siblings to route between.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: 'for a lost phone,' which tells the agent when this operation is appropriate. It also notes the user can enrol again, but provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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