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 and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that credentials are 'persisted to disk and take effect immediately — no restart required.' This informs about persistence and immediate effect, though it doesn't mention potential side effects like invalidating existing sessions or error handling.

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?

Appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by usage guidelines and behavioral details, then parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, and the structure is logical and efficient.

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 covering purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, it could mention authentication requirements or error cases for a credential update tool.

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 meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'base_url' is 'The Immich server URL' with an example, and 'api_key' is 'A valid Immich API key.' This clarifies the purpose and format of both parameters, though it doesn't detail validation rules or constraints.

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 ('Update the Immich connection credentials') and resource ('Immich connection credentials'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage albums, assets, or server info. It goes beyond restating the name by specifying what credentials are updated.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when the API key has been rotated or when the server URL has changed.' This provides clear context for invocation, distinguishing it from other credential-related tools like 'get_connection_info' by focusing on updates rather than retrieval.

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