Acknowledge changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so an agent knows this is a non-destructive write that is not idempotent. The description adds the endpoint (POST /sync/ack) and Sync tag, but says nothing about what acknowledgement does server-side, permission requirements, or how the 1000-item cap behaves — modest added value over the annotations.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the operative sentence before the API metadata. Minor waste from repeating the title 'Acknowledge changes' and the raw endpoint/tag line, but nothing is confusing or padded.

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 and a single simple parameter, this is nearly adequate. Still missing is any statement of when the acknowledgement must be sent, what happens if acks are omitted or malformed, and how it relates to the other sync endpoints, which the description could carry at low cost.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema is nominally 100% covered, but that coverage is the near-useless label 'acks (request body)'. The description does clarify that the array items are sync acknowledgements confirming receipt, which is more than the schema says, yet it never explains what the strings represent (sync IDs, entity IDs) or their expected format.

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+resource: sending a list of synchronization acknowledgements to confirm receipt of the latest changes. Clear what it does, but it never names or contrasts the closely related siblings immich_get_sync_ack and immich_delete_sync_ack, so an agent must infer the routing.

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 phrase 'to confirm that the latest changes have been received' implies this is the client-side acknowledgement step of the sync protocol, which is usable context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternative sync tools such as immich_get_sync_stream.

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