set_user_two_factor_requirement

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose two real traits: the operation is a reversible toggle in both directions ('Require or stop requiring') and it is restricted to self-hosted deployments with admin privileges. It omits what actually happens to the user's existing 2FA enrollment, whether the requirement is enforced immediately on next login, and whether the change is auditable.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and the access restriction appended where it does not interrupt the main clause. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers eligibility and toggle direction but leaves the effect on the target user's current 2FA state, the success response, and error conditions (e.g. user not found, non-admin caller) unexplained. It is workable but thin for a security-sensitive admin 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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'Require or stop requiring' explains that the boolean selects enforcement on/off rather than enrolling the user, and 'for a user' clarifies the userId target. It never names the parameters or states that userId is a UUID, so the mapping is implied rather than explicit.

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 pair ('Require or stop requiring') and a specific resource ('2FA for a user'), and the phrase 'for a user' scopes it apart from the sibling team/global variants (set_team_two_factor_requirement, set_global_two_factor_requirement). An agent can distinguish it from those siblings without opening any schema.

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 admin only)' gives an eligibility precondition, which is useful context for selecting the tool. However, it never explicitly routes the agent among the close alternatives (set_team_two_factor_requirement, set_global_two_factor_requirement, disable_two_factor, reset_user_two_factor), so the per-user scope must be inferred from the name alone.

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