Update an album

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds useful scope context (metadata-only, no membership changes) but says nothing about permissions, reversibility of field changes, or idempotency behavior despite idempotentHint=false.

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 sentence and the scope exclusion, with no filler. The opening line merely restates the title and the trailing Immich operation/tag line is metadata, so it is efficient but not maximally 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 metadata-mutation tool with six fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what can be changed and what cannot, which is the key disambiguation an agent needs. Missing only secondary details such as authorization requirements and response behavior.

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. The description's mention of name/description/sort order maps loosely onto albumName, description, and order, but it adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (update) and resource (album information) scoped by ID, and enumerates the mutable fields (name, description, sort order). The explicit exclusion of asset/user membership meaningfully separates it from siblings like add_assets_to_album and add_users_to_album, though it does not name those siblings directly.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use context (updating album metadata) plus an explicit when-not clause (not for adding/removing assets or users), which routes the agent away from the wrong tools. No named alternatives or auth prerequisites, so it falls short of a 5.

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