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. It discloses key behavioral traits: the operation removes assets from an album but doesn't delete the assets themselves, which is crucial for understanding side effects. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if invalid IDs are provided, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 upfront, followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and clarifies non-destructive nature, while the parameter section provides essential context. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 no annotations, the description does well by explaining the tool's purpose and parameters. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, as a mutation tool with behavioral implications, it could benefit from more detail on error handling or permissions.

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 adds meaningful semantics by explaining that 'album_id' is the 'Target album ID' and 'asset_ids' are 'List of asset IDs to remove', which clarifies purpose beyond schema types. However, it doesn't specify ID formats, constraints, or examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('Remove photos/videos from an album') and resource ('album'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_album' (which deletes the album itself) and 'add_assets_to_album' (which adds assets). The clarification that 'photos themselves are NOT deleted' further differentiates it from potential destructive operations.

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 specifying it's for removing assets from an album, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_album' (which might handle asset management differently) or provide prerequisites. It distinguishes from 'delete_album' by clarifying assets aren't deleted, but lacks comprehensive guidance on when/why to choose this tool.

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