Update an asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/idempotency profile is covered structurally. The description's only added behavioral signal is the deprecation notice, which is useful but vague (no replacement named, no sunset info). It says nothing about partial-update semantics for the 8 optional fields.

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?

Short overall, but the title is repeated verbatim as the first line and then paraphrased in the second line, so roughly a third of the text is redundant. The deprecation warning is buried at the end rather than front-loaded.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the bare essentials but omits auth/permission requirements, partial-update behavior, and the identity of the recommended replacement. 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 of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter detail at all — nothing about whether omitted fields are left unchanged, how null rating/livePhotoVideoId are treated, or what visibility values mean.

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 and resource ('Update information of a specific asset'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like immich_edit_asset, immich_update_asset_metadata, or the bulk immich_update_assets, leaving the agent to guess which update tool applies.

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?

The only usage cue is 'DEPRECATED — prefer the replacement operation if one exists', which does not name the replacement tool or state the condition under which this tool should still be called. No when-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling update tools is provided.

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