Create a partner

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 no behavioral context beyond that: it does not say the sharing is bidirectional/all-assets, whether duplicate partners error (non-idempotent), or what permissions are required.

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, but the first line merely repeats the title verbatim before the slightly redundant sentence, and the trailing "Immich operation: POST /partners · tag: Partners" is machine metadata. Little waste, but little earned value either.

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 one-parameter creation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the essentials are present, and the POST endpoint reference is a small plus. It still omits the sharing semantics and the sharedWithId format, which an agent would need to call it authoritatively.

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 reported at 100%, so the single sharedWithId parameter is documented in the schema, though only as "sharedWithId (request body)". The description adds nothing about the parameter's format (user id vs email) or referent, so baseline 3 applies.

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 partner") and adds domain meaning with "to share assets with," so an agent understands what a partner represents. It does not differentiate from the sibling immich_create_partner_deprecated or explain how it relates to immich_get_partners/immich_remove_partner.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the deprecated create variant or the remove/update counterparts in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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