immich_update_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Update' but never discloses whether this is a partial/patch update (unspecified fields preserved) or a full overwrite, whether changes are reversible, or what permissions are required. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful 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 front-loaded sentence naming the verb, resource, and fields, with zero filler. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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 definition covers the field surface (backed by a fully documented schema) but omits update semantics, permission requirements, and return behavior. Adequate to invoke, but not fully complete for a 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 schema already documents all seven parameters, including ranges (rating 0-5) and formats (ISO date). The description merely re-lists the same fields and adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Update') plus resource ('asset's metadata') and an explicit enumeration of the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool touches. It is distinguishable from read siblings (immich_get_asset) but never names or contrasts with the close sibling immich_bulk_update, which is the main ambiguity risk.

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?

No guidance on when to use this single-asset updater versus immich_bulk_update, nor any stated prerequisites (ownership, permissions, whether the asset must exist). Usage must be inferred from the name and field list alone.

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