Update a tag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP verb (PUT) and the deprecation status, which are useful context, but says nothing about what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs full replacement) or auth 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?

Short and front-loaded, with the core action stated first. The 'Immich operation: PUT /tags/{id} · tag: Tags' line is largely metadata, and the title is repeated verbatim in the opening line, so there is 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 simple three-parameter update with no output schema, the essentials are present. The main gap is that the deprecation warning never names the recommended replacement, leaving an agent with no routing target, which is exactly the information a deprecated tool should supply.

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 the schema already documents id, name, and color. The description only reiterates that the tag is identified by ID, adding no format, constraint, or optionality detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource ('Update an existing tag identified by its ID'), which cleanly separates it from immich_create_tag, immich_delete_tag, and immich_get_tag_by_id. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling immich_upsert_tags, which could plausibly also mutate an existing tag.

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 DEPRECATED note gives a when-not-to-use signal, but it is vague: it says 'prefer the replacement operation if one exists' without naming the replacement or the condition that selects it. No guidance on when to choose this over immich_upsert_tags.

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