Set server product key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one useful behavioral detail - validation happens before the write and the write only occurs on success - but omits permission requirements and what happens on a failed validation.

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: the action, then the validate-then-set behavior, then the API mapping. Slightly redundant in restating the title, but no wasted sentences.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves open the admin/permission prerequisite and any routing cue versus immich_set_user_license, both of which an agent could need.

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 nominally 100%, but the parameter descriptions are placeholders ('licenseKey (request body)'), so the schema adds no real meaning. The description likewise never explains the distinction between activationKey and licenseKey, which is the one piece of semantics an agent would actually need.

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 ('Set server product key') and the underlying operation (PUT /server/license), which is clear. However it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as immich_set_user_license or immich_delete_server_license, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (admin rights, where the activation/license keys come from), and no reference to alternative tools. The only context given is the implied 'validate first, set only if successful' behavior.

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