remove_2fa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action ('Remove/disable') without elaborating on side effects, such as permanently disabling a security feature, invalidating existing 2FA secrets/tokens, or potential security implications. No information on permissions or reversibility is provided.

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 a single, tightly-worded phrase that directly conveys the action and target. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or 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 the simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description covers the basic what-it-does, but it lacks context about the security-sensitive nature of removing 2FA. For an account management tool, an agent might benefit from knowing that this action disables a security layer, yet the description is not grossly inadequate.

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 0 parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none, and it correctly avoids inventing details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove/disable') and clearly identifies the resource ('two-factor authentication') and scope ('from the account'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_2fa (which likely enables/sets 2FA) and get_2fa_status (which checks status).

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 implies when to use the tool (when 2FA needs to be removed/disabled) but does not explicitly state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives. No mention of when not to use it, such as if the account requires 2FA for security compliance, or contrast with set_2fa.

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