Add assets to albums

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: the operation applies a Cartesian product (each asset into each album). It says nothing about permission requirements, handling of invalid/unknown IDs, or partial-failure behavior.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the verb+resource leads, the operative sentence follows immediately, and only the trailing 'Immich operation / tag' line is operational metadata. The first line redundantly restates the tool name/title, which is minor waste but not harmful.

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 bulk mutation with no output schema, the description covers inputs and the cross-product effect but omits return values, error behavior for invalid IDs, and any account/permission context. Adequate for a straightforward put, but thin for a bulk write against an external service (openWorldHint=true).

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%, so baseline would be 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining how the two array parameters interact ('add each asset to each album'), which the schema's plain array-of-UUID definitions cannot convey. It still adds no format details (both are UUID arrays) since the schema handles that.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Add assets to albums') and adds the key semantics that the operation is a cross-product ('add each asset to each album'). However, it never acknowledges the nearly identical sibling immich_add_assets_to_album, so the agent gets no help distinguishing the bulk multi-album variant from the single-album variant.

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 states what inputs to send but gives no when-to-use guidance, no when-not conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as immich_add_assets_to_album or immich_add_users_to_album. With a near-duplicate sibling name in the tool 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.