cipp_reset_mfa

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: the action is reversible by re-enabling MFA, and it requires user confirmation. This goes beyond the annotation flags, though idempotentHint=true is already clear from the action.

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?

The description is very concise: two sentences with a prominent warning prefix. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (impact, reversibility, prerequisite confirmation). It could mention expected response or next steps, but the essentials are sufficient for an agent.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no new parameter-specific details, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 resets all MFA methods for a user, specifying the exact action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cipp_revoke_sessions by focusing on MFA reset specifically.

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 includes a strong caution ('HIGH-IMPACT') and advises confirming with the user, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like cipp_reset_password or cipp_revoke_sessions. Usage context is implied but not direct.

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