ftrack_configure_totp

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for explaining side effects. 'Configure' is vague; it does not disclose what configuration entails, whether 2FA is enabled, if any secret is returned, or any security implications. The description is too thin for a security-sensitive operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It earns its place by expanding the acronym TOTP and specifying the target, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Despite the simple interface (one parameter, no output schema), the tool is security-related and has siblings that suggest a multi-step flow (generate_totp, disable_2fa). The description fails to explain the operational context, such as what happens after configuration or how this fits into 2FA management, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke it confidently.

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 schema covers the only parameter (user_id) with a description, so the tool description adds no new semantic meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description neither enhances nor obscures parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Configure TOTP') and the target ('for a user'), distinguishing it from related tools like ftrack_generate_totp and ftrack_disable_2fa by implying a setup action rather than generation or disabling. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings.

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 alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., whether generate_totp must be called first), and no context about typical use cases. This is a significant gap given the related security tools.

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