Update my preferences

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description's one added behavioral fact is that the operation is deprecated, which is genuinely useful for routing. It does not disclose partial-update semantics (whether omitted sections are preserved or reset) for a 13-parameter nested body.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded, but the opening line merely restates the title verbatim, and the deprecation notice is unactionable. The operation/endpoint metadata is useful; the rest is padding.

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?

With 13 optional nested parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and rich schema descriptions, the structured data carries most of the load. Still missing is the one thing the description could uniquely supply: what partial update means for unsent sections, and the identity of the replacement operation.

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 every nested section (cast, tags, albums, avatar, people, etc.) is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or merge behavior beyond what the schema 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Update the preferences of the current user', which also implicitly separates it from immich_update_user_preferences_admin (admin target) and immich_get_my_preferences (read). It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance, no conditions, and no named alternative. The 'DEPRECATED — prefer the replacement operation if one exists' line hints at an alternative but never identifies it, leaving the agent unable to act on it.

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