Update a partner

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete effect of the mutation (partner assets appearing or not appearing in the timeline), which is useful, but says nothing about required permissions or what happens to the partner relationship itself.

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 lines, with the effect of the tool front-loaded ahead of the boilerplate REST/tag footer. The operation line is useful for routing; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema toggle, the description supplies purpose, the single meaningful argument's semantics, and the endpoint. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying that this tool only flips timeline visibility and does not edit other partner attributes, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, but the schema's own text for inTimeline is only '(request body)', so the description's explanation of what the boolean controls is genuine added meaning beyond the structured fields. The id parameter is left to the schema's uuid format note, which is adequate.

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 names a specific verb and resource and states the exact setting being changed (whether a partner's assets appear in the user's timeline), which is far more informative than the bare title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as immich_create_partner, immich_remove_partner, or immich_get_partners.

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?

Usage is only implied: the second sentence tells the agent what the tool controls, so it is understandable when toggling timeline visibility is relevant. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (an existing partner relationship), and no routing to alternatives like create_partner or remove_partner.

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