immich_add_to_album

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens to duplicate assets, whether the caller needs ownership of the album, or any portion of the response, which matters 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?

A single short sentence with the action and target front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though perhaps too terse to carry the disclosure a mutation tool needs.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It falls short on mutation semantics (duplicates, permissions, result) that annotations would normally supply but do not here.

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% and both parameters (albumId, assetIds) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('assets to an existing album'), so the operation is unambiguous. It implies a distinction from create_album/list_albums but never names a sibling or clarifies the boundary explicitly.

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 phrase 'existing album' hints that the album must already exist, which is a small piece of guidance. However there is no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, no note on required permissions, and no mention of what to do with assets already in the album.

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