Update assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the bulk-operation trait ('multiple assets at the same time'), which is useful, but says nothing about partial-update semantics or what happens to unmentioned 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?

Three short, front-loaded lines with no wasted prose; the purpose comes first and the deprecation caveat last. The repetition of the title as the first line is slightly redundant but harmless.

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 an 11-parameter bulk mutation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries the parameters. But the vague deprecation note ('if one exists') and absent guidance on which replacement to prefer leave a real gap.

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 all 11 parameters (including enum and range constraints) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (assets) and clarifies scope with 'multiple assets at the same time', which implicitly distinguishes it from the singular immich_update_asset sibling. However, it never names that sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 guidance is 'DEPRECATED — prefer the replacement operation if one exists', which tells the agent to avoid the tool but not which alternative to use. No when-to-use context or prerequisites are given, leaving the agent to guess among ~200 siblings.

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