panelica_2fa_post_v1_2fa_enable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description reiterates this with 'Mutating: changes server state.' It adds the required scope 'accounts:write' as useful auth context, but overall adds limited behavioral detail beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact and structured with HTTP method, category, scope, and mutation status. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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?

With no output schema and an open request body, the description leaves critical invocation details missing: what to send in the body, what the response looks like, and what side effects beyond 'changes server state' occur. An agent cannot fully understand how to call this tool correctly.

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 only parameter, 'body', has a schema description explicitly stating it is not statically declared. The tool description provides no additional fields, format, or example. Schema coverage is nominally 100%, but the body's actual structure is opaque, and the description does nothing to compensate.

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 verb and resource: 'Enable 2FA'. The HTTP path and category reinforce the action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like disable or verify, though 'enable' is unambiguous enough on its own.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 2FA tools (status, disable, verify). It lists required scopes and mutation status, but not context for choosing this operation over alternatives.

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