disable_two_factor

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden for a destructive security mutation and mostly fails: it doesn't state that the caller must re-authenticate with password and a 6-digit TOTP, whether this affects only the caller or a target user, or whether the change is reversible. The only behavioral hint is the vague "when policy permits" failure condition.

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 sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first. It is efficiently written but simply too thin to earn a 5.

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 an unannotated, irreversible security-settings mutation with two undocumented required parameters and no output schema, an agent needs prerequisites, effects, and failure modes that are entirely absent. The definition is not complete enough to invoke confidently.

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 0% and the description mentions neither parameter, so nothing explains that "password" is the account credential or that "token" is a 6-character TOTP (the 6/6 length constraint is visible in the schema only). Parameter names are partly self-evident, which keeps this above 1, but no compensating semantics are added.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Disable ... 2FA") plus the product scope ("self-hosted Umami"), which is enough to distinguish it from setup tools like initiate_two_factor_setup or confirm_two_factor_setup. It does not, however, distinguish it from the closely related cancel_two_factor_setup or reset_user_two_factor.

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?

"When policy permits" gestures at a precondition but never says what policy, who can check it, or what happens if it blocks. There are three sibling 2FA-reset/cancel tools and the description offers no guidance on which to pick, leaving the agent to guess.

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