Update user onboarding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and repeat-call profile is covered structurally. The description adds the concrete endpoint (PUT /users/me/onboarding) and confirms the current-user scope, but says nothing about who may call it beyond authentication, what state changes when the flag flips, or any side effects.

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?

Three short lines with the action front-loaded and no filler. The opening line duplicates the title verbatim, which is mildly redundant, but nothing else wastes space.

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 one-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description plus the REST endpoint reference are roughly sufficient to invoke it. It is incomplete on the return behavior and the permissions needed to change another account's state, which are the details an agent could still get wrong.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the parameter burden and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name — it never explains that isOnboarded=true marks onboarding complete or what false implies.

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+resource (update onboarding status) and scopes it to the 'current user', which implicitly separates it from the sibling admin-oriented immich_update_admin_onboarding. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: it targets the current user's onboarding, so the agent can infer it applies to 'me' rather than another user. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the read (immich_get_user_onboarding) or clear (immich_delete_user_onboarding) counterparts, and no stated prerequisites.

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