probely_configure_2fa_totp

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses automatic TOTP generation and configuration, and mentions Probely auto-converts the fill_otp step. Missing side effects like overwriting existing 2FA, but overall transparent.

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 concise paragraphs, front-loaded with key action and usage context. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given output schema exists, description explains the otp_code field and usage flow. For a 4-param tool with 2 required, it provides sufficient context to use correctly, though could add more on param specifics.

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 description must compensate. It mentions 'secret' and 'TOTP code' but does not explain individual parameters like targetId, otp_algorithm, otp_digits. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but description lacks explicit semantics.

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 clearly states the tool configures TOTP-based 2FA for a target, generating a TOTP code and configuring it as the OTP placeholder. This is distinct from sibling tools like configure_form_login or configure_sequence_login.

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 explicitly says 'Call this BEFORE creating/updating the login sequence' and explains how to use the returned otp_code in a fill_value step. It provides clear when-to-use guidance but does not mention when not to use or alternatives.

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