Create a manual job

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the kind of jobs available (cleanup tasks, database backup) but says nothing about async execution, auth requirements, or side effects, so it only modestly extends the annotations.

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 operation and followed by one useful clarifying sentence; the trailing 'Immich operation: POST /jobs · tag: Jobs' metadata is low-value but brief. Overall tight and well-ordered.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient, covering what the tool does and roughly when. It omits whether the job runs asynchronously or returns a job handle, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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% and the single 'name' parameter is backed by a self-describing enum, so the baseline is 3. The description does not explain any of the job names, adds no meaning beyond the schema's enum values.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Create a manual job', 'Run a specific job') and clarifies the operation is for manually triggering a subset of jobs. It doesn't differentiate from close siblings like immich_run_asset_jobs or immich_run_queue_command_legacy, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It signals context ('Most jobs are queued automatically... allows for manual creation') which implies when to use it, but names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out against siblings.

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