set_team_two_factor_requirement

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. It does disclose the key non-obvious trait that this is a mutation scoped to self-hosted installs and gated by owner/manager role, which is valuable. It does not say whether enabling the requirement retroactively forces existing members without 2FA out or into a setup flow, nor whether the call is idempotent — the main consequences an agent needs to know before invoking.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded and the constraint folded into a compact parenthetical. Nothing redundant, nothing padded.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema toggle the description covers scope, effect, and permission gating, which is most of the picture. The remaining gap — the downstream effect on members who have not enrolled in 2FA — is the one thing an agent would most want before flipping this flag, and there are no annotations to fill it in.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'for a team' signals teamId is the target scope and 'Require or stop requiring' maps cleanly onto the boolean 'required'. But it never states the format expected for teamId (UUID) or the true/false orientation of 'required', leaving the schema's bare type declarations to do the rest.

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 states a specific action ('Require or stop requiring 2FA') against a specific resource ('a team'), including the fact that it is a bidirectional toggle rather than a one-way enable. It is unambiguous on its own, though it never names the sibling scoping variants (set_global_two_factor_requirement, set_user_two_factor_requirement) so an agent must infer the team-level distinction from the tool name alone.

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 parenthetical '(self-hosted owner/manager only)' supplies a real applicability gate — deployment edition and caller role — which is useful. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this over the global or per-user 2FA requirement tools, and no note on what states must exist first (e.g. whether the team must have users).

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