Delete user product key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this permanently removes something. The description contributes only the concrete endpoint and the fact that it targets the current user's key rather than an admin-managed one — useful scoping, but no auth requirements or post-delete state described.

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?

It is short, but the first line merely repeats the title verbatim before the actual content, and 'Delete the registered product key for the current user' restates the same idea a third time. The endpoint/tag line is the only value-add, so the definition carries mild 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 zero-parameter destructive endpoint with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the target scope and the underlying API route, which is enough to invoke it correctly. A note on whether the delete is reversible or requires re-registration would have completed it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed beyond the implicit authenticated user context.

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 states a specific verb (delete) and resource (the current user's registered product key / license), and the endpoint line pins down exactly which license is affected — the caller's own, not the server's. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like immich_delete_server_license or immich_set_user_license, but the 'current user' scoping makes the target unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the related license tools (get_user_license, set_user_license, delete_server_license). The only guidance is implied by the verb in the name; no prerequisites, reversal path, or alternative conditions are given.

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