Merge people

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (POST /people/{id}/merge) and tag, but does not disclose what happens to the merged source people (deletion/face reassignment) or irreversibility, and arguably the destructive=false annotation understates the operation.

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: the key merge sentence appears first, followed by endpoint metadata and the deprecation note. The opening line 'Merge people' duplicates the title, which is minor wasted space, but the rest is efficient.

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 two-parameter, schema-covered merge tool with annotations handling safety, most of what an agent needs is present. The gap is the vague 'if one exists' deprecation pointer that fails to name the concrete replacement, and the absence of any outcome description (what merging does to the source people).

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it disambiguates that `ids` is the list merged into the path `id`, resolving which parameter is the target versus sources — a semantic detail absent from the bare 'ids (request body)' schema text.

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 (Merge) and resource (people), and crucially clarifies the direction: a list of people is merged INTO the person in the path parameter. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling immich_merge_people, referring only abstractly to 'the replacement operation' without naming it.

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 note tells the agent to prefer a replacement, which is real usage guidance, but it is vague — it never names immich_merge_people as the preferred sibling. No explicit when-to-use/when-not beyond that single backward-looking sentence.

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