Reset two factor authentication for user

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Destructive' merely repeats that with no added context. It gives the underlying endpoint (DELETE /users/{id}/two_factor_authentication), which corroborates the HTTP method, but says nothing about what actually gets cleared, whether the user is locked out until re-enrollment, or what permissions are needed.

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?

Three short fragments with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the endpoint detail. It is telegraphic rather than explanatory, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers both parameters, so the definition is callable as-is. It is still thin for a destructive user-account mutation: it does not say what the reset leaves the account in, whether the operation is reversible, or what a successful response looks like.

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 100%, so both the required 'id' and the 'response_format' enum are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the full burden.

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 (reset two factor authentication for a user) and its name distinguishes it from the neighboring placetel_reset_user_password. However, the description itself never explicitly contrasts the two, so an agent must infer the distinction from the tool name rather than the prose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus placetel_reset_user_password, placetel_update_user, or placetel_delete_user, and no stated prerequisites or preconditions. The only operative cue is the trailing word 'Destructive', which does not tell the agent when this action is warranted.

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