Enable 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 usefully says recovery tokens are returned, but it omits auth/permission requirements, what happens if 2FA is already enabled, and whether recovery tokens are shown once or persisted.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and mechanism, and the return-value note is also concise. There is no wasted text.

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?

The description is adequate to invoke the tool: the required TOTP code is clear, and the return of recovery tokens is disclosed despite no output schema. However, for a security-sensitive mutation with no annotations, it omits prerequisites and permission context, leaving clear 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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions the TOTP code, which aligns with the required parameter, but adds no meaningful detail for the panel, baseUrl, clientKey, or applicationKey overrides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: enabling two-factor authentication. It adds the confirmation mechanism ('by confirming a TOTP code') and the return value ('recovery tokens'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like account_2fa_get and account_2fa_disable.

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?

It explains the mechanism but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say when to use this instead of account_2fa_get or account_2fa_disable, nor whether 2FA setup must happen first.

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