Tag assets

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the tag is applied to 'all the specified assets', which is minimal context beyond the structured fields, and it says nothing about failure modes or partial application.

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 action, and the endpoint reference is compact. The leading 'Tag assets' line merely restates the title, which is a small amount of redundant text.

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 barely sufficient. It omits any differentiation from untag/bulk-tag siblings and any note on partial success, leaving modest completeness 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 baseline is 3. The schema fields themselves are terse ('format: uuid', 'ids (request body)'); the description implicitly clarifies that 'id' is the tag and 'ids' are the target assets, but it never names or maps the parameters explicitly, so value-add is marginal.

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 ('Add a tag to all the specified assets') and identifies the underlying operation (PUT /tags/{id}/assets), so an agent immediately knows it applies one tag to many assets. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling immich_untag_assets (the inverse) or immich_bulk_tag_assets (plural/bulk variant), which is the main gap.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. With immich_untag_assets and immich_bulk_tag_assets as siblings, the description should say when this one-tag-to-many-assets endpoint is preferred, but it offers nothing.

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