user_two_factor

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: resetting 2FA forces re-enrollment and is security-sensitive, which goes beyond the raw annotation flags. No contradiction exists.

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 structured with an operations list and a note, but contains some redundancy. The 'Returns' section is unnecessary given an output schema exists, and the second sentence ('Administrative functions...') repeats the initial purpose. Could be tightened without loss.

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?

With only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the operation, its security impact, and the re-enrollment consequence. It lacks explicit permission requirements, but the 'administrative' label provides sufficient context for an agent to understand usage boundaries.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds the behavioral effect of the 'action' parameter (reset) and what it means for the user, enriching the schema's minimal 'The 2FA action to perform' with concrete consequences.

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 it manages user two-factor authentication and specifically lists the 'reset' operation with its effect ('requiring them to re-enroll'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_users or user_assets, which handle broader user/asset management.

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 notes this is an administrative function affecting user security, implying it should be used with caution and by authorized admins. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the operation is narrowly scoped to 2FA resets, making usage context clear.

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