apple_photos

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects, permissions, or confirmation requirements. It only lists actions; the schema's 'confirm' parameter mentions protected/destructive actions, but the description itself adds no behavioral context. This is a notable gap.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the resource and an action list. It's brief and readable, though the action list duplicates the schema's enum, making it slightly redundant.

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 schema's complete parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines, which are important for a tool with 10 actions and potential destructive operations.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter meaning; it only restates action names that are already in the action enum's 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 states 'Control Apple Photos' and lists specific actions (albums, recent, search, etc.), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the resource, though the verb 'control' is broad.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The name and action list imply usage for Apple Photos tasks, but the description doesn't mention when not to use it or compare to sibling tools like apple_finder or apple_notes.

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