Run an asset job

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 safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds essentially nothing beyond restating the title and exposing the raw endpoint — it never says the job is queued asynchronously, whether it can be re-run or cancelled, or what the caller receives back.

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 text is short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence. The leading repetition of the title ('Run an asset job' followed by 'Run a specific job...') is mild redundancy but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what triggering a job yields (job ID, async processing, polling via the queue tools), and it does not. Annotations cover the mutation profile, but the async lifecycle of a job tool remains undocumented, leaving a real gap for correct invocation.

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% with only two parameters, one of which carries an enum of job names, so the schema already documents them adequately. The description contributes no additional meaning about what each job name does (e.g., refresh-faces vs transcode-video) or the expected impact on the listed assetIds. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Run a specific job on a set of assets') and names the underlying operation (POST /assets/jobs), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this from the many other job/queue tools in the sibling list (immich_create_job, immich_run_queue_command_legacy, immich_scan_library), so it stops 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as immich_create_job or immich_scan_library, and no mention of prerequisites or side effects. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the enum values.

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