Delete user onboarding

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds only the endpoint and the 'current user' scope, which usefully bounds the blast radius but adds no detail on irreversibility or side effects beyond what annotations say.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the first line duplicates the tool title verbatim, which is a small waste. The remaining lines are efficient and each carries 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?

For a zero-parameter, destructive-but-idempotent operation whose annotations already convey the safety and mutability profile, the description supplies enough: what is deleted, for whom, and the underlying endpoint. No output schema exists and none is needed for a delete.

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 disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — delete the onboarding status of the current user — which is unambiguous and distinguishable from the sibling read/write variants immich_get_user_onboarding and immich_set_user_onboarding. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; it merely restates the operation and its HTTP endpoint. An agent gets no signal about preconditions, exclusivity with set_user_onboarding, or consequences of clearing onboarding.

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