Create a partner

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds the deprecation warning, which is real behavioral value, but omits auth requirements and what 'sharing' actually grants.

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 deprecation warning placed at the end where it is visible. Minor redundancy in restating the title verbatim and including a boilerplate 'Immich operation' line.

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 create tool with annotations covering safety, the description is roughly adequate. Its key gap is that a deprecated tool should name the replacement operation, and it does not.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('format: uuid'), so the schema carries the load. The phrase 'share assets with' hints that the id refers to a user to partner with, but this is not stated explicitly.

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 partner') plus intent ('to share assets with'), which is clear. It does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling immich_create_partner beyond the name's '_deprecated' suffix, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'DEPRECATED — prefer the replacement operation if one exists' line nudges the agent away from this tool, which is useful context. However it never names the actual replacement (immich_create_partner) and 'if one exists' is vague, leaving the agent to infer the alternative from the sibling list.

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