Lock auth session

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, and the description is consistent with them. The description usefully adds the actual effect (dropping elevated asset access), but says nothing about auth requirements, reversibility, or session-state side effects beyond that one sentence.

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: title, effect, then the raw endpoint/tag metadata. The 'Immich operation' line is boilerplate but is compact and useful as an API cross-reference, with no padding.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers the endpoint and the effect adequately. It stops short of noting the unlock counterpart or when the elevated access would have been granted, which is the main contextual gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface the description needs to explain.

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 second sentence specifies the effect concretely ('remove elevated access to locked assets from the current session'), which is more than a restatement of the title. However, it does not distinguish this from the closely related siblings immich_lock_session and immich_unlock_auth_session, so an agent cannot confidently route between them from the description alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and the natural inverse (immich_unlock_auth_session) and near-duplicate (immich_lock_session) are never mentioned. The agent gets no signal about which of the three lock/unlock session tools to select.

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