Activate authenticator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful prerequisite that a code must already be generated, but says nothing about what happens on an invalid code, whether an existing authenticator is replaced, or what auth/permissions are required for this mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, but for a mutation tool with three opaque parameters this brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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?

A state-changing 2FA mutation with no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and three opaque parameters needs far more than one sentence. The description omits parameter mapping, error behavior, and side effects, so an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call from the definition alone.

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% and all three parameters (form, params, json_body) are untyped and undocumented. The description mentions a 'generated code' but never says which parameter carries it or in what format, leaving the agent to guess at the entire call shape.

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 and resource: enabling TOTP 2FA by confirming a generated code. This clearly separates it from a generic 'verify' or 'get' tool, though it does not name the sibling it pairs with (generate_authenticator) or distinguish itself from activate_authenticator_put.

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 'confirming a generated code' implies the prerequisite workflow (generate first, then activate), which is useful. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to the near-duplicate _put variant or the alternative activate_duo/webauthn/yubikey tools.

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