Setup pin code

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation in an open world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'current user' scope and the underlying endpoint (POST /auth/pin-code); it does not say whether an existing PIN is overwritten, what permissions are needed, or whether the call fails if a PIN already exists.

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 substantive sentence is front-loaded and short, though the leading 'Setup pin code' line merely repeats the title, which is mild waste in an otherwise efficient definition.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials but omits the two things an agent would most want: the PIN format/constraints and how this differs from the change/reset siblings. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 baseline is 3, but the schema's own parameter description is content-free ('pinCode (request body)') and the tool description adds nothing about format, length, or character constraints for the PIN.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Setup a new pin code for the current user'), which tells an agent exactly what the tool does and scopes it to the authenticated user. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling tools immich_change_pin_code and immich_reset_pin_code, which a reader must infer from naming 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 guidance on when to use this versus change_pin_code or reset_pin_code, no prerequisites (e.g., whether an existing PIN must not be set), and no mention of required authentication. The 'current user' scope is the only contextual hint.

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