patch_users_by_id_openid_unlink

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Update' and the endpoint path; it does not disclose what an unlink operation affects, whether it requires special permissions, or what side effects occur.

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 with the action and endpoint. The Args section adds minimal semantic labels to the schema without repeating the schema verbatim. There is no filler, though the endpoint line is somewhat redundant with the tool name.

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?

The tool has a required body object with additionalProperties: true and no parameter descriptions, so an agent needs more context about what openid-unlink does and what fields the body expects. The pointer to /schema helps, but the description still lacks the operational context needed to call this endpoint confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies id as a path parameter and body as a request payload, and it points to the matching GET or /schema endpoint for field details. However, it does not describe any actual body fields or expected structure, leaving the agent dependent on external discovery.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'users openid-unlink', and gives the exact PATCH path, which makes it distinguishable from sibling tools like patch_users_by_id. It does not explicitly explain that this unlinks a user's OpenID identity, 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?

The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as patch_users_by_id, nor does it explain when unlinking OpenID is appropriate. It does offer a preparation step ('Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first'), but that is not tool-selection guidance.

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