Check bulk upload

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds that matching is checksum-based and batch-oriented, but says nothing about auth requirements, maximum batch size, or whether the operation is side-effect free despite readOnlyHint=false on a check-style call.

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: purpose sentence first, then the API operation/tag reference. No filler. The 'Immich operation' line is boilerplate but useful for mapping to the underlying endpoint.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the response shape (which assets matched and how results map back via id). The id field description in the schema partially covers matching, but the overall return structure is left unstated, leaving a real gap for a check tool.

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 assets array, id echo field, and Base64/hex SHA1 checksum are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the checksum basis, adding no syntax or format detail beyond structured data; 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+resource+mechanism: determine which assets are already on the server using SHA1 checksums. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling upload/list tools. It stops short of naming an alternative or contrasting with the actual upload tool, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 use case (pre-upload deduplication check) is strongly implied by 'which assets have already been uploaded,' but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of pairing with immich_upload_asset, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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