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 states the tool updates fields, implying mutation, but doesn't address permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on partial updates (e.g., empty strings). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving significant behavioral gaps 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 a bullet-point-like parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical information without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the main action and remains appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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), no annotations, and simple parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameter meanings but lacks behavioral details like error conditions or side effects. For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, it should ideally include more context about outcomes or constraints to be fully helpful.

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 substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'album_id' as the unique ID, 'name' as new name with empty meaning no change, and 'description' similarly. This clarifies semantics that the schema alone (just titles and types) doesn't provide, 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('album's name or description'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_album' or 'delete_album' by specifying it modifies existing albums rather than creating or deleting them. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_credentials', though the resource focus is distinct.

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 when needing to modify an album's metadata, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., album must exist), exclusions, or comparisons with similar tools like 'create_album' for initial setup. The context is clear from the action, but lacks proactive guidance for the agent.

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