Update people

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely carried by structured data. The description adds the bulk-update scope and endpoint, but does not disclose what happens to omitted fields, whether null clears a value (the schema allows null for color/birthDate), or permission requirements.

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?

Two short tokens ('Update people', 'Bulk update multiple people at once') plus a compact endpoint line; the scope is front-loaded and nothing is padded. The title duplicates the first line, a minor redundancy.

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 bulk mutation tool with full annotations and 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential 'what' but omits partial-update/null-clearing semantics and any permission notes. Adequate but with a clear behavioral gap for a write 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 the single 'people' array parameter is fully documented at the field level, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates only that the update is bulk, adding no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Update people') and immediately scopes it ('Bulk update multiple people at once'), which distinguishes it from the singular immich_update_person sibling without naming it. The endpoint reference (PUT /people) reinforces what entity is being acted on.

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 word 'Bulk' implies the usage condition (multiple people at once, versus a single-person update), but it never explicitly says when to choose this over immich_update_person or how to structure a bulk call. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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