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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool creates a public link and affects visibility, but doesn't address permissions needed, whether the operation is reversible, rate limits, or what happens if a link already exists. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter section could be slightly more concise. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 4 parameters.

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), 4 parameters with good semantic coverage in the description, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and parameters well but could better address behavioral aspects like permissions 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 provides explicit parameter documentation in the 'Args:' section, adding crucial semantics beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. It explains what each parameter controls (e.g., 'Allow visitors to download photos' for allow_download), fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 specific action ('Create a public shared link') and resource ('for an album'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_shared_links' or 'update_album'. It also explains the functional outcome ('makes the album visible in the Immich Gallery frontend'), providing clear differentiation.

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 implies usage context by mentioning the Immich Gallery frontend, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_shared_links' for viewing existing links or 'update_album' for modifying album settings. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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