Add assets to an album

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description is not the primary carrier here. It adds the underlying HTTP operation (PUT /albums/{id}/assets), which is mild extra context, but says nothing about auth requirements, partial-failure behavior, or what happens when an asset is already in the album despite the idempotent hint.

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 title is repeated verbatim as the first line and then the same idea is restated as "Add multiple assets to a specific album by its ID," so roughly half the text is redundant. The endpoint/tag metadata is useful but the opening duplication wastes the front-loaded position.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is adequate but thin. It omits the idempotency semantics the annotations imply and any note on whether the whole batch fails if one asset ID is invalid, which matters for a batch-add 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 coverage is 100% but the schema descriptions are bare ("format: uuid" for both params). The description adds genuine disambiguation by identifying `id` as the album and `ids` as the assets being added, which the schema alone does not make clear. That is meaningful value above the 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?

States a specific verb (add), resource (assets), and target container (a specific album by ID), so the core operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the dangerously similar sibling immich_add_assets_to_albums (plural) or from immich_add_users_to_album, leaving the agent to guess which of the near-identical names applies.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like immich_add_assets_to_albums, immich_remove_asset_from_album, and immich_add_memory_assets in the list, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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