Set maintenance mode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. But the description adds nothing beyond the name: it never says that starting maintenance blocks normal user access, that the restore actions are irreversible in effect, or that restoreBackupFilename is required for those actions.

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?

Front-loaded and short, with the effect stated in the first line. The endpoint/tag metadata line is somewhat boilerplate 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?

For an admin mutation with four enum actions, one of which triggers a database restore requiring a filename, the description is too thin. With no output schema and no annotation detail on impact, the agent lacks the context needed to choose an action safely.

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 the schema already documents both parameters and the enum values. The description adds no extra meaning about action semantics or when restoreBackupFilename matters, so this sits at the baseline of 3.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Put Immich into or take it out of maintenance mode,' with the underlying endpoint POST /admin/maintenance. An agent can distinguish it from read-side siblings like immich_get_maintenance_status, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'Maintenance (admin)' tag hints at an admin-only context, but the description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of how it relates to immich_start_database_restore_flow, which overlaps heavily with the 'select_database_restore'/'restore_database' enum actions.

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