immich_reassign_faces_by_idReassign a face to a different person using its face ID to correct misidentified people in Immich.
Re-assign a face to another person
Re-assign the face provided in the body to the person identified by the id in the path parameter.
Immich operation: PUT /faces/{id} · tag: Faces
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | format: uuid | |
| body | Yes | faceDto (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, giving the safety profile. The description adds the input mapping but says nothing about permissions, side effects on the previous person assignment, or failure modes when the face/person does not exist.
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?
Two short sentences plus an operation/tag footer; front-loaded and free of padding. The opening line duplicates the title, which is the only mild redundancy.
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?
Adequate for a simple two-parameter mutation with rich annotations, and the nested body is explained. It still omits the bulk alternative and any error/permission behavior, which matters for an open-world, non-read-only operation.
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% (baseline 3), and the description goes one step further by disambiguating two identically named `id` fields: the body carries the face, the path carries the target person. That mapping is genuinely value-adding beyond the terse 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 and resource ('Re-assign a face to another person') and clarifies the argument mapping. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling immich_reassign_faces (plural/bulk), though the singular phrasing implies single-face scope.
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, prerequisites, or alternative routing is given. The obvious alternative, immich_reassign_faces, is never named, so an agent must infer single-vs-bulk from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.