immich_rename_person

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 confirms a mutation ('rename') but does not disclose permissions, side effects, reversibility, or how the rename affects recognized faces or existing metadata, leaving significant gaps.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation and gets directly to the action and target.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal to be complete. It omits usage guidance, behavioral context such as permissions or side effects, and any distinction from related people-management tools, leaving the agent to infer too much.

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 schema already documents id, name, and birthDate clearly. The description mentions naming/renaming, which loosely maps to the name parameter, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 a specific verb pair (Name or rename) and resource (a recognized person), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like immich_merge_people or immich_list_people, so it falls short of the sibling-differentiation needed for a 5.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as immich_merge_people or immich_list_people, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only implies usage from the tool name and short phrase.

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