Update the system configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The phrase 'with a new system configuration' hints at full replacement, which is useful, but the description never states the key behavioral risk: because all 22 top-level fields are required, any omitted setting is reset to a supplied default, and existing config should be fetched first.

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 body is short and front-loaded, with the endpoint/tag metadata appended efficiently. It wastes one line restating the title verbatim before restating it again, but overall it is tight.

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 22-parameter, fully-required, whole-object replacement of an admin config with nested objects and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits replacement semantics, the read-then-write workflow, admin auth requirements, and any indication of which config sections carry meaningful risk.

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 descriptions are mostly tautological ('Enabled', 'Concurrency', 'Quality'). The description adds nothing about the 22 nested config groups (backup, ffmpeg, oauth, machineLearning, etc.) or their interaction.

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 gives a clear verb and resource ('Update the system configuration'), and the endpoint note (PUT /admin/config) pins down the operation. However, it never distinguishes this tool from its near-identical siblings immich_update_config (user config) and immich_get_admin_config; the only differentiator is the 'admin' token in the tool name, not the description.

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 tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warning that this is a whole-config replacement rather than a partial patch. The agent is left to infer that it should call immich_get_admin_config first.

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