set_2fa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action and required parameters, without disclosing that enabling is permanent, whether it overwrites existing 2FA, or what happens on success/failure. For a security-sensitive mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 filler or redundant explanation. Every word contributes to conveying the action and inputs, making it appropriately concise.

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?

The tool is a security-sensitive mutation with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description offers no workflow context (e.g., prerequisite of generate_2fa_config) or outcome information. The agent is left guessing about the response format and lifecycle implications, so completeness is low for the tool's complexity.

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 the input schema already thoroughly documents both 'secret' and 'code'. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, only paraphrasing the field names. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Enable two-factor authentication') and specifies the required inputs ('secret and verification code'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like generate_2fa_config and remove_2fa, which handle different phases of 2FA lifecycle.

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 implies a workflow (must have a secret from generate_2fa_config and a code), but it does not explicitly say 'use after generate_2fa_config' or 'not for disabling'. The when-to-use context is implied by the schema references but not spelled out in the description, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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