Disable 2FA

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. It discloses only that the account password is the credential; it says nothing about whether disabling invalidates existing recovery codes or sessions, whether the change is reversible, whether it requires elevated auth, or what the response contains — significant gaps for a security-weakening 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, correctly leading with the action. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves no room for the risk context that a destructive security operation warrants.

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?

Five parameters with panel/URL/key overrides, no output schema, and no annotations — yet the description mentions none of the environment-override mechanics and none of the effects. For a security-critical mutation it should explain consequences and return behavior; here almost everything must be inferred.

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 80%, so the schema already documents panel, baseUrl, clientKey, and applicationKey. The description's only added parameter content is that the password gates the operation, which is already implied by the required field. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Disable two-factor authentication') plus the credential it needs. The name and description together clearly distinguish it from account_2fa_enable and account_2fa_get, though the description itself never names those siblings.

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?

No guidance on when an agent should call this versus account_2fa_get or account_update_password, no prerequisites beyond the password parameter, and no warning about the security consequence of turning 2FA off. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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