Create an album

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds only the REST endpoint (POST /albums), which is structured metadata rather than new behavioral context; it says nothing about auth needs, duplicate-name behavior, or side effects. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with the core action and short overall. The leading line repeats the title verbatim and the trailing 'Immich operation / tag' line is boilerplate, which is minor waste but doesn't obscure the main point.

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?

The four parameters are fully documented in the schema, so no param explanation is needed, and there is no output schema to describe. However, for a create mutation with no output schema the description omits what is returned (the created album identifier) and any failure/duplicate nuances, leaving a modest gap.

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 interpretive context by noting the album can carry initial users and assets, loosely mapping to albumUsers and assetIds, but it gives no format, constraint, or role details beyond the schema.

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 ('Create a new album') and adds that the album can be created with initial users and assets, which clarifies the tool's scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as immich_update_album_info or immich_add_assets_to_album, but the create-vs-modify distinction is fairly evident from the name and verb.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The sentence 'The album can also be created with initial users and assets' hints at an option but does not tell the agent when to prefer this over immich_create_album-plus-add calls or other album siblings. Usage is only implied.

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