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 offers minimal behavioral context. It states the tool creates something but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or any rate limits. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it fails to provide essential behavioral details for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the bullet-point format for parameters enhances readability without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does an adequate job explaining parameters but lacks behavioral context. It's minimally viable for a creation tool but misses important details like error conditions or side effects.

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 description adds meaningful context for all three parameters beyond the 0% schema coverage. It clarifies that 'name' is the album name with an example, 'description' is optional, and 'asset_ids' is an optional list for immediate addition. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't specify format constraints for asset IDs.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('a new album'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_album' by specifying creation rather than modification, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives like 'list_albums'.

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. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'add_assets_to_album' for adding assets after creation.

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