Create a shared link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no auth/permission requirements, no note on what happens to an existing link with the same slug, and no mention that the created link's visibility is governed by password/expiresAt/showMetadata.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but three of its four lines are redundant: the name, the first line, and the second line all say 'create a shared link.' The only novel content is the Immich operation/tag footer, so efficiency is undermined by restatement.

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 10-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: that 'type' is required, that ALBUM needs albumId while INDIVIDUAL needs assetIds, and what the created link returns. Annotations cover safety but not the structural constraints an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 of 3 applies even though the description itself says nothing about parameters. The description adds no meaning for the ten fields, and notably does not explain the ALBUM vs INDIVIDUAL enum or how it relates to albumId and assetIds.

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 does give a clear verb+resource pair ('Create a new shared link') and names the underlying endpoint POST /shared-links, so the agent knows this is a creation tool. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title with no differentiation from siblings like immich_update_shared_link, immich_get_all_shared_links, or immich_add_shared_link_assets.

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 mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. The description repeats 'Create a shared link / Create a new shared link' rather than explaining when this tool is the right choice over the shared-link siblings.

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