immich_reassign_facesBulk reassign multiple faces to a different person in Immich. Provide a list of asset IDs and target person ID to update face assignments.
Reassign faces
Bulk reassign a list of faces to a different person.
Immich operation: PUT /people/{id}/reassign · tag: People
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | format: uuid | |
| data | Yes | data (request body) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation is bulk and notes the underlying PUT /people/{id}/reassign endpoint, but says nothing about what happens to the previous person assignment or any permission requirements, leaving real behavioral gaps.
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?
The body is one efficient sentence, and the endpoint metadata is compact. It does waste the first line restating the title verbatim, which is minor redundancy rather than useful content.
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 bulk mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the annotations carry the safety flags, but it omits the distinction from immich_reassign_faces_by_id and any statement about the effect on the source person record, leaving meaningful ambiguity.
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 both the id and data array (with assetId/personId) are already documented in structured form. The phrase 'list of faces to a different person' loosely maps to data and id but adds no syntax, cardinality limits, or format detail beyond the schema.
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 (reassign) and resource (faces) with the scope modifier 'bulk' and identifies the target ('to a different person'). However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling immich_reassign_faces_by_id, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool, so it falls short of a 5.
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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions alternatives or the difference from immich_reassign_faces_by_id. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and endpoint path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.