Upsert asset metadata

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 safety profile is covered. The description reinforces the idempotent upsert semantics and discloses the concrete backend operation (PUT /assets/metadata), but adds little about what happens to existing keys or the multi-asset failure behavior.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, with the core action stated first. There is minor redundancy, as the title 'Upsert asset metadata' is echoed verbatim in the first line, plus a low-value endpoint/tag trailer.

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?

No output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. For a bulk write tool the description is adequate but thin, omitting batch-size limits, partial-failure behavior, and prerequisites.

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% and there is a single 'items' parameter whose nested assetId/key/value fields are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning about the items structure, 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?

The description gives a specific verb (upsert) and resource (asset metadata) and adds scope (multiple assets), which implicitly separates it from the single-asset sibling immich_update_asset_metadata. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation relies on the reader inferring from 'multiple assets'.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named-alternative guidance. An agent must infer from 'multiple assets' that this is the batch variant, and the related tools (immich_update_asset_metadata, immich_delete_bulk_asset_metadata) are never referenced.

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