Set user product key

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, giving the agent the safety profile. The description adds the endpoint/tag context but doesn't explain what happens on invalid keys, license validation behavior, or overwrite semantics. Given annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with the operative verb and resource, but the first line repeats the title verbatim, then a near-duplicate restatement, then endpoint metadata. Some redundancy that doesn't earn its place.

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?

No output schema, so the description needn't explain returns. But for a mutation tool with two opaque required parameters, it leaves gaps around effects, validation, and success/failure behavior that a fuller description would fill.

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% but the schema descriptions are placeholder-style ('licenseKey (request body)'), so the schema itself adds little real meaning. The description doesn't elaborate on the format or distinction between licenseKey and activationKey. Baseline 3 given high coverage.

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 ('Register a product key for the current user') and the underlying endpoint (PUT /users/me/license). It's distinguishable from siblings like set_server_license or delete_user_license, though the description doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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 guidance or exclusions. It doesn't clarify when a user should use this vs immich_set_server_license, or that this targets only the current authenticated user rather than arbitrary users. Usage is only implied by the endpoint.

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