mfa_enable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but not side effects, prerequisites, whether existing MFA is replaced, consequences of a bad OTP, or confirmation semantics. The 'confirm: Required' claim also conflicts with the schema, which lists no required parameters, further reducing transparency.

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 short and front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence. The Args block is compact, though the 'confirm: Required' line is misleading and slightly wasteful; otherwise, it is efficiently organized.

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, two-parameter tool with no annotations and a 0% schema coverage, this description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, parameter semantics, effect on the account, and relationships to the MFA sibling tools. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these 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%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by explaining that 'payload' is panel-specific and may contain OTP/password, but it is vague and does not describe structure, defaults, or the actual type/meaning of 'confirm'. The 'Required' label for confirm is misleading because the schema marks it as optional with a default of false.

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 uses a specific verb ('Enable') and resource ('multi-factor authentication') with a clear scope ('on the current account'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mfa_disable and mfa_recovery_codes.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus mfa_generate_secret, mfa_recovery_codes, or mfa_disable. The agent is left to infer context from the name alone; there is no mention of prerequisites, sequencing, or when not to use it.

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