immich_run_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Trigger a server job' implies a long-running or asynchronous operation, but the description doesn't mention whether it blocks, returns a job ID, or requires polling. It also doesn't disclose side effects, resource consumption, or potential impacts on the server (e.g., high CPU). This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.

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 sentence that efficiently lists the job types. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, though the list is somewhat lengthy. No wasted words, but could be structured better with a note about the force parameter.

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 complexity of server jobs (which likely have side effects, may be asynchronous, and could impact performance), the description is incomplete. It lacks any information about execution behavior, return values, or error handling. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to inform the agent about what to expect.

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 the description enumerates the possible jobName values mapping to the enum. However, it doesn't explain the 'force' parameter's behavior beyond what the schema already states ('Force re-run even if already processed'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 clear verb 'Trigger' applied to a concrete resource 'server job', and it enumerates the possible job types (face detection, smart search, thumbnail generation, etc.). It's specific enough that an agent can understand what invoking it does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like immich_server_info.

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 description lacks any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state that this is a server-level job trigger, nor does it explain the conditions under which one should run specific jobs (e.g., after uploading assets). No when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned.

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