Unlink OAuth account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds the endpoint (POST /oauth/unlink) and the fact that the target is the current user rather than an arbitrary account, but says nothing about the effect on the user's ability to log in afterward or whether re-linking is required.

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, with the action stated first. The only waste is the redundant restatement of the title as the opening line before the slightly expanded sentence.

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 authentication operation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: the action, the scope (authenticated user), and the underlying operation. Minor gaps remain around post-unlink consequences.

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 and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 (unlink) and resource (OAuth account) and scopes it to the authenticated user, which cleanly separates it from immich_link_o_auth_account and immich_unlink_all_o_auth_accounts_admin. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls 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?

The phrase 'from the authenticated user' implies the usage context (self-service removal of one's own OAuth link) and implicitly distinguishes it from the admin-wide unlink, but no when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative is given.

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