photos_add_to_albumAdd an existing photo from your Proton Drive library to an album without re-uploading it. Use photos_list_albums to find album paths first.
Add a photo already in your library to an album (does not upload). Find album paths with photos_list_albums.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| albumPath | Yes | Album path, /albums/<name>. | |
| photoPath | Yes | Photo path, /photos/<name>. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / properties / albumPath / descriptionPrevious value: -"Absolute path of the album. Must start with /albums/. E.g. /albums/Vacation 2024"New value: +"Album path, /albums/<name>."Input schema / properties / photoPath / descriptionPrevious value: -"Absolute path of the photo in your library. Must start with /photos/. E.g. /photos/IMG_001.jpg"New value: +"Photo path, /photos/<name>."v1.0.26Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (destructiveHint: false), so the description carries most of the burden, and it does add real behavioral context: the photo must already exist in the library and nothing is uploaded. It still omits what happens if the photo is already in the album or the album path is invalid (idempotency/error semantics).
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the clarifying '(does not upload)' constraint before the sibling pointer. No filler.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, and the sibling needed to resolve the album path. Only error/idempotency behavior is left unstated, a minor gap.
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 100%, with both albumPath and photoPath documented in the schema. The description adds no path syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (add) and resource (photo to album), and explicitly disambiguates from upload with '(does not upload)'. An agent can distinguish it from photos_upload without opening any schema.
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?
Points the agent to photos_list_albums to obtain a valid album path and clarifies a precondition (photo must already be in the library). It provides clear context but does not mention the inverse sibling photos_remove_from_album or note when this operation is not appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.