Update user preferences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety/behavioral profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful facts that this is an admin-scoped endpoint and is deprecated, but says nothing about partial-vs-full update semantics or auth requirements, so it adds only modest context.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the title 'Update user preferences' is immediately restated by 'Update the preferences of a specific user', which is redundant filler. The deprecation note is the only non-redundant content, and it is terse.

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 14-parameter admin mutation on nested objects with no output schema, the annotations and rich schema cover most of what an agent needs. However, the description never clarifies whether omitted preference fields are preserved or reset (a key concern for a partial-body PUT) and leaves the 'replacement operation' unnamed, so it is only minimally 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% across all 14 nested preference parameters, so the schema fully documents field meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the endpoint signature, which is the correct baseline 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+resource ('Update the preferences of a specific user') and the HTTP operation (PUT /admin/users/{id}/preferences) with an admin tag, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling immich_update_my_preferences. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 deprecation warning ('prefer the replacement operation if one exists') gives a usage signal, but it never names the replacement operation, leaving the agent to guess. There is no guidance on when to choose this admin variant over immich_update_my_preferences, so usage is only weakly implied.

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