mfa_generate_totp

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits itself, but it only says 'Generate'. It does not disclose whether this creates a secret, a QR code, a configuration entry, or a token; whether it mutates project state; or whether it requires special permissions beyond the optional API key.

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 single sentence is concise, front-loads the main action, and contains no filler. Its brevity is effective, though it skips useful behavioral context that would make the structure more informative.

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?

Because there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and what generation entails, but it does not. It is unclear whether 'directory' is an existing project, a target directory, or where artifacts are written, leaving the agent with meaningful ambiguity.

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 baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-level detail. The description does not explain how 'directory' or 'api_key' are used, but the schema already documents both adequately.

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 names a specific action ('Generate') and a specific resource ('TOTP-based two-factor authentication'), so an agent can tell this is the TOTP variant of MFA generation. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like mfa_generate_sms or mfa_generate_recovery, but the TOTP terminology implicitly differentiates it.

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 this tool is for TOTP-based 2FA, and sibling names hint at SMS and recovery-code alternatives. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over those alternatives, when not to use it, or what prerequisites must exist before calling it.

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