immich_merge_people

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, and it does not state that the merge is destructive or irreversible, what happens to the absorbed person records, whether faces/assets are reassigned, or what permission level is required. For a mutating consolidation operation this is a significant disclosure 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?

A single clause, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler, hedging, or restatement of the tool name. Nothing can be trimmed without losing the described action.

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 destructive two-parameter merge with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum signal irreversibility and the outcome for the merged clusters. As written, an agent knows what the tool does but not the consequences of calling it.

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%: 'id' is documented as the primary person to keep and 'mergeIds' as the IDs merged into it. The description adds only the framing that these are face clusters being deduplicated, so beyond name/identity semantics it contributes little that the schema does not already convey.

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 supplies a specific verb ('Merge') and a specific resource ('duplicate face clusters into one person'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from read-oriented siblings like immich_list_people or immich_search_people. It stops short of naming the closest conceptual neighbour (immich_rename_person), so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative handles a similar need. The word 'duplicate' hints at a use case, but no prerequisites (e.g. confirming the clusters really are the same person) or exclusions are stated.

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