user_otp_put

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: 'Включение OTP' hints at a state-changing enable operation, but there is no mention of auth requirements, side effects, idempotency, or the preview-vs-execute behavior. It is a bare endpoint restatement plus tag/spec metadata.

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?

It is short, but most lines are REST boilerplate (endpoint, tag, spec), and the one meaningful phrase ('Включение OTP') is buried on the second line. No wasted sentences, but low information density rather than true conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the confirm:true preview behavior, the admin-on-behalf-of relationship, or how it relates to user_otp_setup_post, leaving the agent to infer everything from the raw schema.

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 as 100%, so the schema already documents body, confirm, and user_id (including the rw-preview semantics). The description adds no extra meaning about any parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a REST endpoint (PUT /user/otp) plus a short Russian label 'Включение OTP' (Enabling OTP), so the action and resource are identifiable. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like user_otp_post, user_otp_setup_post, or user_otp_delete. Purpose is understandable but not sharp.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternatives (user_otp_setup_post, user_otp_get, user_otp_delete), and no preconditions. The only behavioral note about writable/read-only mode and confirm:true lives in the schema, not the description.

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