enroll_mfa

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, not idempotent (actually idempotentHint=true, so repeatable), and not destructive. Description adds that it returns a QR code URI for TOTP and mentions the session upgrade via verify_mfa, but does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing factors or auth requirements.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes key details (return type, next step). No unnecessary information.

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?

Adequate for a simple one-parameter tool: explains the main use case and next step. Lacks completeness for phone factor enrollment and does not mention prerequisites (e.g., user session status). Output schema missing but not critical given the simple return.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description partially explains factor_type: it mentions TOTP and SMS for the two enum values, but only elaborates on TOTP behavior (QR code). It does not explain the enrollment process for 'phone' (e.g., sending SMS) or that the parameter is optional with a default.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Enroll a new MFA factor'), specifies types (TOTP or SMS), and describes the output (QR code URI for TOTP). It also distinguishes from siblings by referring to verify_mfa for completion.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to call verify_mfa after enrollment to complete the process. However, does not explicitly contrast with other MFA tools like challenge_mfa or list_mfa_factors, or mention when not to use this tool.

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