Update a shared link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method and path, but omits meaningful PATCH semantics — whether omitted fields are left untouched, whether passing null clears a password/expiresAt, and whether changing the slug invalidates existing links. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is a 3.

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, front-loaded with the title and the core action, with no filler prose. The 'Immich operation' line is metadata rather than behavioral content, but it is compact and useful for mapping to the API.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly adequate. It is missing only the partial-update/null-handling semantics that an agent would want before mutating a shared link, which keeps it at minimum viable rather than complete.

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 all eight parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no field-level meaning (e.g., nullable password or expiresAt semantics) on top of it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (update), resource (shared link), the identifying key (by its ID), and the underlying operation (PATCH /shared-links/{id}), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not (create_shared_link, remove_shared_link, get_shared_link_by_id), leaving differentiation to inference.

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?

Beyond 'update an existing shared link by its ID' there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over immich_create_shared_link, immich_remove_shared_link, or immich_add_shared_link_assets, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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