Change pin code

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: it does not say the operation likely requires the existing pin or account password for verification, nor anything about failure behavior, which matters for a credential-mutating endpoint.

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 content is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the title is restated verbatim in the first line and the 'Immich operation: PUT /auth/pin-code · tag: Authentication' boilerplate is mapping metadata rather than guidance, so little of the text earns its place.

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 3-parameter credential mutation with no output schema and only weak annotations, the description should clarify the old-credential requirement and the relationship to the setup/reset siblings. As written it is thin, though the annotations and 100% schema coverage keep it from being fully inadequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, and the schema's own text ('pinCode (request body)', 'password (request body)') is purely structural, so an agent gets no help on when pinCode vs password must be supplied.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Change the pin code for the current user') and scopes it to the current user, so the action is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar siblings immich_setup_pin_code and immich_reset_pin_code, leaving the agent to infer which of the three to pick.

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?

There is no when/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives. In a sibling set containing setup_pin_code and reset_pin_code, failing to explain that this tool changes an already-existing pin (vs. creating or clearing one) is a real routing gap.

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