Create an activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/network profile is covered. The description adds only the target domain (album/asset in album) and no extra behavior such as auth requirements or repeat-call effects for a non-idempotent write.

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, with the meaningful payload description in the second line. Minor waste: the title 'Create an activity' is repeated verbatim as the opening line, and the operation/tag line is boilerplate.

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 4-parameter write tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient about what it creates, but omits permission/access context and any indication of the returned activity record, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 schema documents all four parameters, and the enum on type is machine-readable. The prose adds conceptual mapping (like/comment on album or asset) but no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is 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 (create) and resource (activity) and clarifies the two concrete payloads: a like or a comment, targeting an album or an asset within an album. This distinguishes it from the read siblings immich_get_activities/immich_get_activity_statistics, though it does not explicitly name immich_delete_activity as its inverse.

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?

Usage is implied by the description — you use it to post a reaction or comment — but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g. album access), and no routing to alternatives such as immich_delete_activity for removal.

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