panelica_2fa_post_v1_2fa_disable

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

Annotations already indicate not read-only and not idempotent; the description adds the required accounts:write scope and explicitly states 'Mutating: changes server state.' It does not disclose other behavioral consequences, such as whether a confirmation code is required or how existing 2FA settings are affected.

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 definition is compact and structured with HTTP method, category, required scope, and mutation flag. There is slight redundancy in repeating 'Disable 2FA' and the Category line, but no significant bloat.

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?

It covers the essential auth scope and mutation semantics, but leaves the request body content unspecified and does not explain when to use this operation versus sibling 2FA operations. For a simple state-changing endpoint this is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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?

The single body parameter is described in the schema as 'Request body (application/json). Schema not statically declared — see API docs,' which gives little real semantic detail. The description adds no further parameter guidance, so with high schema coverage the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Disable 2FA', reinforced by the exact HTTP endpoint POST /v1/2fa/disable. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling 2FA tools such as enable, verify, and status.

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 intended use is implied by the name and endpoint, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over panelica_2fa_post_v1_2fa_enable or panelica_2fa_get_v1_2fa_status. It provides scope and mutation context but no alternatives or exclusions.

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