Update system configuration

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds modest value by implying a wholesale replacement ('with a new system configuration'), consistent with a PUT that requires all 22 top-level sections, plus the deprecation warning. It does not mention auth privileges or side effects such as restarting jobs, so it stays at a baseline 3.

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 description is short and front-loads the action, but the first two lines are redundant ('Update system configuration' twice) and the deprecation warning, arguably the most actionable content, is buried at the end. It is compact but not optimally structured.

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?

This is a high-complexity mutation with 22 required nested parameters, no output schema, and a full-replace PUT semantic that the description never makes explicit (the agent could wrongly assume a partial patch). Combined with no named replacement for the deprecation notice, the description is too sparse for a tool of this complexity.

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 nested fields (ffmpeg, oauth, machineLearning, etc.) are already documented in the schema and the description need not repeat them. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource (update the system configuration) and names the underlying operation PUT /system-config, so the agent knows what is being changed. However, the substance is largely a restatement of the tool name/title, and it offers no differentiation from siblings such as immich_update_admin_config, immich_update_server_config, or immich_get_config. It is clear but thin.

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 signal is 'DEPRECATED — prefer the replacement operation if one exists,' which is vague because it never names the replacement tool. There is no guidance on when this bulk config update should be used versus immich_update_admin_config or the narrower config getters. The agent is left to guess at the alternative.

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