Copy asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds which data categories get copied ('albums, tags, etc.'), but omits key semantics for a copy operation: whether target's existing data is overwritten or merged, and what the response looks like.

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 description is short and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first substantive sentence. The trailing 'Immich operation: PUT /assets/copy · tag: Assets' is metadata padding but 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 mutation tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It leaves unclear what copy actually does to existing target data and whether the boolean flags are opt-in or opt-out, which matters for correct invocation.

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 nominally 100%, so the baseline is 3. However the schema descriptions are pure boilerplate ('albums (request body)') and the description only loosely gestures at 'albums, tags, etc.' without clarifying the boolean flags (stack, sidecar, favorite, sharedLinks) or their defaults, so no value is added.

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 (copy), resource (asset information), and direction (from one asset to another), with examples of what is copied (albums, tags). It is clearly distinguishable from generic update/edit siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 guidance on when to use this versus related tools such as immich_edit_asset, immich_update_asset, or immich_add_assets_to_album. No prerequisites, permissions, or exclusions are mentioned.

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