Activate authenticator put

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it specifically enables TOTP 2FA, which is useful context beyond the generic title. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what happens upon activation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though given the tool's complexity (3 undocumented params), a bit more detail could be warranted without sacrificing 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 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what the response looks like, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent with significant gaps.

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% for the three parameters (form, params, json_body). The description mentions none of them, so it provides no meaning beyond the bare schema names. This is inadequate for a tool with undocumented parameters.

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: 'Enable TOTP 2FA'. It also notes '(PUT alias)', hinting at the HTTP method, but does not differentiate this tool from its sibling `vaultwarden_activate_authenticator` (non-PUT version).

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or when to choose the PUT alias over the regular activate authenticator tool.

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