immich_update_stackUpdate an existing Immich stack by ID and optionally assign a new primary asset.
Update a stack
Update an existing stack by its ID.
Immich operation: PUT /stacks/{id} · tag: Stacks
DEPRECATED — prefer the replacement operation if one exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | format: uuid | |
| primaryAssetId | No | primaryAssetId (request body) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (the write nature), idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the deprecation notice and the endpoint mapping, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or what happens to stack members on update. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.
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?
Very short and front-loaded with the verb and resource. The deprecated line is appropriately placed at the end, though 'Immich operation: PUT /stacks/{id} · tag: Stacks' is essentially metadata padding that could be omitted.
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 2-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint and deprecation but omits key context: what a stack is, whether updating requires ownership/permissions, and which replacement tool to prefer. Annotations cover safety, but the deprecation is left dangling without a concrete alternative.
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 both 'id' (uuid) and 'primaryAssetId' are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given full schema coverage, but offers no extra meaning like what primaryAssetId does.
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 ('Update') and resource ('a stack'), plus the underlying API operation PUT /stacks/{id}. It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't differentiate from siblings like immich_update_assets or immich_update_memory beyond the resource name.
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 says 'DEPRECATED — prefer the replacement operation if one exists' but gives no concrete guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., which update tool replaces it, or when updating is appropriate). This is a vague, passive caveat rather than actionable routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.