Add assets to a memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which conveys the safety/mutation profile. The description adds nothing beyond the raw PUT endpoint, so it does not enrich behavior (e.g. that re-adding is idempotent, or what happens on duplicate ids) beyond what structured fields provide.

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, leading with the action. There is mild redundancy between the first line and title and the second line, but no filler and the endpoint reference is compact.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition gives enough to call it correctly. No output schema is needed. The only gap is the absence of when-to-use routing against the sibling remove/update memory tools.

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 id and ids parameters are already documented with their uuid formats. The description only restates "list of asset IDs" and "specific memory," adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource ("Add assets to a memory") and clarifies it takes a list of asset IDs into one memory. It is distinguishable from siblings like immich_remove_memory_assets and immich_update_memory, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 versus immich_remove_memory_assets, immich_update_memory, or other asset-attachment tools. The agent must infer applicability purely from the verb. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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