ftrack_disable_2fa

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral implications, but it only states the action without disclosing side effects, permission requirements, or reversibility. For a security-sensitive mutation, this lacks important context. It does not contradict any annotations since none are provided.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description states the core function but omits operational context such as whether the action requires administrative privileges or what happens to the user's 2FA recovery codes. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for a security-related mutation.

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 provides complete coverage for the single 'user_id' parameter with description 'User ID'. The tool description adds 'for a user', which aligns with the parameter but doesn't provide additional format or usage semantics. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 'Disable' and clearly identifies the resource 'two-factor authentication for a user'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ftrack_configure_otp and ftrack_configure_totp, which manage 2FA settings rather than disable them. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 such as ftrack_configure_otp or ftrack_reset_remote_api_key. It doesn't mention prerequisites like admin permissions or the context in which disabling 2FA is appropriate. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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