cancel_two_factor_setup

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden for a state-changing operation. It doesn't say whether the pending secret is discarded, whether it errors when no setup is pending, whether an already-enabled 2FA is unaffected, or what authorization is required. Only the surface intent is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with no filler. The scope qualifiers ('pending', 'self-hosted') are exactly the disambiguating words and 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?

For a zero-parameter, simple cancellation this is minimally sufficient — the agent knows what it does. But with no annotations and no output schema, it says nothing about failure modes (no pending setup) or the effect on existing 2FA configuration, which a caller should know before invoking.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading hints about inputs are given.

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 plus resource and scope: 'Cancel pending self-hosted Umami 2FA setup'. That clearly implies aborting an in-progress enrollment, which separates it from disable_two_factor and confirm_two_factor_setup by implication. It never names those siblings explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 word 'pending' implies the precondition (call only when a setup has been initiated but not confirmed), but the description never states that condition or names initiate_two_factor_setup / confirm_two_factor_setup / disable_two_factor as the alternatives. An agent must infer the workflow position.

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