Create a cluster group request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that this is a request/notification sent to another user rather than a direct membership change, but says nothing about approval flow, permissions, or failure modes.

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?

Three short lines, purpose front-loaded, with the operation/tag metadata trailing as boilerplate. Nothing is padded, though the metadata line adds little for an agent.

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?

A simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile; the description supplies the missing 'what this actually does' semantics. Remaining gaps (permission requirements, response shape) are minor given no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema's own descriptions are thin ('format: uuid', 'userId (request body)'), and the prose only weakly implies that 'id' is the cluster group and 'userId' is the invited user, so no real clarification is added beyond structured data.

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 first line names the verb+resource and the follow-up sentence 'Ask another user to join the cluster group of the current user' makes the actual semantics concrete, distinguishing it from accept/delete siblings conceptually. However, it never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 second sentence implies the usage context (inviting another user), which is more than nothing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g., must the requester own the group?), and no pointer to immich_accept_cluster_group_request or immich_delete_cluster_group_request as the follow-up alternatives.

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