Upload database backup

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive admin operation. The description adds the accepted file formats and the admin endpoint, which is real context, but it does not disclose what happens to existing data, whether the upload alone completes a restore, or auth requirements beyond the '(admin)' tag.

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: the action, the accepted formats, and the endpoint metadata appear in order with no wasted prose. The 'Immich operation:' line is metadata rather than description, but it is compact and useful.

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 admin mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is uploaded but omits whether a subsequent restore flow must be triggered, whether the server enters maintenance mode, and what success looks like. Adequate but with clear gaps for a potentially impactful admin operation.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the bare 'file (request body)' schema entry by specifying the accepted .sql/.sql.gz formats, which the agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 and resource (upload database backup) and adds the concrete accepted formats (.sql/.sql.gz) plus the underlying endpoint. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from database-backup siblings such as immich_start_database_restore_flow or immich_list_database_backups.

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 phrase 'to restore backup from' implies the context (restoring a database from a backup file), which is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. maintenance mode), and no pointer to the sibling restore-flow tool that likely follows. Usage is only implied.

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