reset_user_two_factor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose the target state (enrollment and backup codes are cleared) and the self-hosted/admin restriction, which are meaningful behavioral facts. It does not state irreversibility, what happens to active sessions, or that the user must re-enroll, leaving the destructive semantics incomplete.

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 naming the action, the affected artifacts, and the access restriction, with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing a fact.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers action, scope of destruction, and the admin/self-hosted gate. Missing are post-conditions (user locked out until re-enrollment, session invalidation), which an agent should know before invoking an irreversible account-security mutation.

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 coverage is 0%, but there is only one parameter whose name (userId, uuid format) and the phrase 'a user's' make the target self-evident. The description adds only the indirect signal that the userId is the affected user, not whether it can be the caller's own id or requires admin scope.

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 ('Reset') and a specific resource ('2FA enrollment and backup codes'), naming exactly what is affected. It is distinguishable from siblings like cancel_two_factor_setup or disable_two_factor in that it targets an admin acting on another user, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

'self-hosted admin only' is a real deployment/permission prerequisite, which is useful guidance. However, there is no statement of when to choose this over disable_two_factor or cancel_two_factor_setup, nor any exclusion condition, so the usage boundary is only implied.

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