initiate_two_factor_setup

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about the mutation's effects. It does not say whether a secret/QR is generated and returned, whether the setup must subsequently be completed via confirm_two_factor_setup, whether authentication is required, or whether the call is repeatable. For a security-sensitive state-changing tool this is a substantial 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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and every word ('Start', '2FA setup', 'self-hosted Umami') contributes. It is arguably too terse for the operation's sensitivity, but nothing redundant is present.

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 but security-relevant initiation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the essentials: what the call returns, what the caller must do next, and any auth prerequisites. The agent would have to guess the setup flow's shape from the sibling tool names alone.

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 tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage is trivially 100%), so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 pairs the specific verb 'Start' with the concrete resource '2FA setup' and scopes it to self-hosted Umami, so an agent can tell it initiates rather than confirms or cancels a setup. It does not explicitly name the neighboring tools (confirm_two_factor_setup, cancel_two_factor_setup) that sit in the same flow, so sibling differentiation is implied by 'Start' rather than stated.

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 verb 'Start' implies the usage context: begin a 2FA enrollment flow. However, the description gives no explicit conditions, prerequisites (such as an authenticated session), or mention of what to call afterward, so the guidance is implicit rather than stated.

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