Update person

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

Annotations already cover write semantics (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, non-destructive, openWorld). The description repeats nothing about what fields are mutated, what auth is needed, or side effects on faces/featureFaceAssetId. It just restates the operation. With annotations carrying most of the load, the description adds nearly nothing about behavior beyond the generic 'Update person'.

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 but padded with meta boilerplate: 'Update person', 'Update an individual person', 'Immich operation: PUT /people/{id} · tag: People', and a rather unhelpful deprecation note. Some redundancy between the first two lines; the endpoint line is occasionally useful but not semantic.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description should explain what changes are possible and what side effects (e.g., featureFaceAssetId) exist. Instead it provides only a generic statement and a vague deprecation. The agent gets everything from the schema and annotations, leaving the description functionally redundant.

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%; the schema documents id, name, color, isHidden, birthDate, isFavorite, featureFaceAssetId. The description adds no parameter meaning at all. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents everything, so the description neither helps nor hurts.

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+resource ('Update an individual person'), which is clearer than the title alone. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like immich_update_people (bulk), immich_update_person, or immich_merge_person_legacy. The 'Immich operation: PUT /people/{id}' line adds endpoint specificity but no conceptual differentiation.

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 description offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It says only 'prefer the replacement operation if one exists' — vague and unhelpful. With many update_* siblings, the agent has to guess why it would pick this over immich_update_people or immich_merge_people.

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