Update admin onboarding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds nothing beyond this: no auth/permission requirements, no effect of toggling the flag, no statement of what changes or is preserved. The endpoint line only corroborates the POST verb already implied by the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded, but its first two lines are redundant (the title repeated and then paraphrased), so not every sentence earns its place. The endpoint footer is the only distinct content.

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 boolean write with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits, however, what admin onboarding means, who may invoke it, and what the flag toggle affects.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a single boolean isOnboarded parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'onboarding status' loosely maps to the flag but adds no semantics (e.g., what true/false mean operationally).

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 says 'Update the admin onboarding status,' a clear verb+resource, and the name distinguishes it from the read sibling (immich_get_admin_onboarding) and the user-level variant (immich_set_user_onboarding). However, the opening line is a verbatim restatement of the title, so the description itself adds almost no differentiation beyond the name.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as immich_get_admin_onboarding, immich_set_user_onboarding, or immich_delete_user_onboarding. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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