Update current user

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds two pieces of real context beyond them: the tool is deprecated, and it maps to PUT /users/me. It does not say whether omitted fields are cleared or left untouched, nor that it only affects the caller's own account.

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 and front-loaded, and the deprecation warning is placed where it will be seen. The first two lines restate the title and the same operation, which is mild waste but not harmful.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it does and that it is deprecated, but leaves the replacement operation unnamed and the partial-update semantics unstated. An agent has enough to call it, but not enough to prefer something else.

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 four fields and the avatarColor enum are already documented. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, notably that all fields are optional and that this is effectively a partial update.

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 the current user making the API request'), and the self-scope distinguishes it from the admin-side immich_update_user_admin sibling. It is clear, but does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from.

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 prerequisites, and no named alternative. The DEPRECATED note says 'prefer the replacement operation if one exists' but never identifies that replacement, so an agent cannot act on it.

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