Push LLM-generated descriptions, favorites, and ratings to multiple assets in one call. Pass an array of asset IDs and metadata to apply bulk updates.
Bulk update descriptions/metadata for multiple assets. Feed LLM-generated descriptions back into Immich. Pass an array of {id, description, isFavorite, rating}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| updates | Yes | Array of updates to apply |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'update' but never discloses whether fields are partial/patch semantics, what happens to omitted fields, whether it requires auth, how per-item failures in the array are handled, or whether operations are atomic. For a bulk mutation tool this is a significant 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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and tightly scoped. Only the second sentence's motivational framing is slightly expendable, so it stops short of ideal economy.
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?
Parameters are fully documented by the schema and there is no output schema to explain. However, for a bulk mutation with no annotations, the description omits partial-update semantics and error behavior, leaving the agent without guidance on a non-trivial write operation.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the item fields ({id, description, isFavorite, rating}), which mirrors the schema but adds no syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema already documents.
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 (bulk update) and resource (descriptions/metadata for multiple assets), and the 'bulk'/'multiple assets' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the single-asset sibling immich_update_asset. Clear but not explicitly differentiated from that sibling.
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?
Provides one intended workflow ('feed LLM-generated descriptions back into Immich'), which implies the use case, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no mention of using immich_update_asset for single assets, and no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.