Add assets to a shared link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety/mutation profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that only 'individual'-type links are supported, but says nothing about auth requirements or what happens to assets already present.

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?

Front-loaded and short, but the title is repeated verbatim and then restated as 'Add assets to a specific shared link by its ID', which is redundant. The operation/endpoint metadata line is useful but the definition spends roughly half its words on restatement.

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 tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits auth/scope requirements and the effect of re-adding an already-linked asset. The type restriction is the only real addition.

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% and both parameters (id, assetIds) are documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'by its ID' and adds no format, ordering, or size-limit detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add assets to a shared link') and narrows scope with 'by its ID'. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like immich_remove_shared_link_assets or immich_add_assets_to_album, so the agent gets no sibling differentiation.

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 line 'only relevant for shared link of type individual' gives a genuine applicability condition, which is more than nothing. But it does not name alternatives or state what to do for other link types, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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