Upload asset

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds essentially nothing beyond restating the mutation, and notably omits that the operation is non-idempotent and that duplicate uploads can be avoided via checksum — context the agent would find valuable for a 13-parameter write.

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 text is short, but the first line redundantly repeats the title 'Upload asset' before the one informative sentence and the operation tag. There is no waste of length, yet the leading duplicate line is not front-loading new information.

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 13-parameter write tool with three required fields and no output schema, the description never explains what assetData contains (e.g., base64 payload), how fileCreatedAt/fileModifiedAt must be formatted, or that non-idempotency means retries can create duplicates. It is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 85%, so the schema itself documents most parameters (including the checksum and visibility enum). The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Uploads a new asset to the server') and cites the underlying operation POST /assets. It does not distinguish itself from other upload/create siblings such as immich_upload_database_backup or immich_check_bulk_upload, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of related operations like the bulk-upload check or the checksum-based duplicate detection path. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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