cipp_reset_mfa

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

The description discloses high impact, the specific behavior (resets all MFA methods, requiring re-registration), and reversibility (by re-enabling MFA). This adds valuable context beyond the annotations that already indicate destructiveness.

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 concise with a front-loaded warning, followed by action, reversibility, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds unique value without redundancy.

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 destructive authentication tool, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, impact, reversibility, and a prerequisite action (user confirmation). No output schema is needed as the action is self-explanatory.

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?

The input schema provides clear descriptions for both parameters (userId and tenantFilter) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning or formatting details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific action (reset MFA methods) and the resource (user). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cipp_reset_password and cipp_revoke_sessions by focusing on MFA reset.

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 instructs to confirm with the user before invoking, providing a clear usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like cipp_disable_user or cipp_revoke_sessions.

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