two_factor_finish

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

It discloses an important runtime branch: the presence or absence of `code` changes the flow, and the device-confirmation flow has a prerequisite. Since no annotations are provided, this behavioral context carries real weight. However, it does not mention side effects on the session, possible errors, or what happens after a successful finish, leaving the behavioral picture 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the conditional behavior plus prerequisite are packed into a compact second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter auth step, the description covers the essential branching and prerequisite despite having no annotations or output schema. The missing `subdomain` semantics and lack of return/error behavior prevent it from being fully complete.

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 add meaning to the parameters. It does clarify that `code` is an email/app code and distinguishes it from the no-code confirmation flow. However, `subdomain` is never explained, leaving one of two parameters semantically opaque.

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 phrase 'Finish 2FA authentication' names a specific auth step, and the conditional clause clarifies the two modes: using a provided code or falling back to device confirmation. Referencing two_factor_check_confirmed helps distinguish this tool from the related 2FA sibling. It is clear, though the term 'finish' is slightly less concrete than naming a resource or outcome.

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 description gives an explicit rule: if `code` is provided, use it as an email/app code; otherwise, use the device-confirmation flow. It also tells the agent to call two_factor_check_confirmed first in the no-code path. This is actionable guidance, though it does not address broader auth-tool selection among login-related siblings.

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