Disable twofactor put

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true; the description adds nothing about permissions required, whether the change is reversible, or whether re-enabling is a separate call. For a security-lowering mutation, that silence is a real gap, and "disable" sits awkwardly beside destructiveHint=false without any explanation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but at this level of underspecification the brevity is a liability rather than a virtue.

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?

With no output schema, a fully opaque request body, and only weak annotations, the description needs to carry auth requirements, provider identification, and side effects. It delivers none of these, leaving an agent able to understand the intent but not to invoke the tool safely.

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 coverage is 0% and the three parameters (form, params, json_body) are untyped and undocumented. The description only implies that one of them identifies the 2FA provider; it never says which key carries the provider type or what values are accepted, so an agent cannot construct the call from this text.

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?

"Disable a specific 2FA provider" gives a clear verb and resource, and "(PUT alias)" distinguishes it from the sibling vaultwarden_disable_twofactor. What is missing is what "specific" means operationally (which provider field), but the agent can still tell what this tool does and how it differs from its non-PUT twin.

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 parenthetical "PUT alias" hints that a sibling exists, but there is no statement of when to pick this over vaultwarden_disable_twofactor, vaultwarden_disable_authenticator, or vaultwarden_remove_2fa. No preconditions, no exclusions, no prerequisites are given.

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