mfa_disable

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that payload usually includes the current password/OTP and that confirm is required, but it does not disclose side effects, whether MFA removal is reversible, or whether re-authentication is needed. The statement that confirm is 'Required' also conflicts with the input schema, which lists no required parameters and gives confirm a default of false.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core action. The Args section adds meaningful parameter context without unnecessary elaboration, though the 'Required' note for confirm is inaccurate relative to the schema.

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 security-sensitive MFA-disabling operation with no annotations and minimal parameter details, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the consequences, prerequisites, or differences from related MFA tools, and the schema contradiction about confirm creates further ambiguity.

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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence. It adds some meaning by explaining that payload usually contains the current password/OTP and labeling confirm as required, but 'confirm' is not explained beyond that, and the schema's default/required status is not reconciled.

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 clear action and resource: 'Disable MFA.' This is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from related sibling tools like mfa_enable or mfa_recovery_codes beyond the obvious opposition to enable.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mfa_enable or mfa_generate_secret. The description simply states the action and parameters, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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