immich-photo-manager

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether duplicates are handled, rate limits, or what the output contains. It mentions the parameters but not the tool's operational behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description covers the basics but lacks depth for a mutation tool. It doesn't explain error conditions, side effects, or output structure, relying on the output schema for return values.

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 lists both parameters with brief explanations ('Target album ID', 'List of asset IDs to add'), adding basic meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or examples, leaving gaps.

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 clearly states the action ('Add') and resources ('photos/videos to an album'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_assets_from_album' beyond the opposite action, missing explicit comparison.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_album' or prerequisites such as existing albums/assets. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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