Validate library settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds nothing about what validation actually does, whether it has side effects, or what it returns. For a POST endpoint that is explicitly non-readonly and non-idempotent, the description fails to clarify the mutation or side-effect behavior the annotations hint at.

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 and front-loaded, but the first line duplicates the title verbatim and the second line is a near-identical rephrasing, so the content is somewhat redundant rather than tightly informative. No waste in length, but little added value per sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what a validation result looks like (e.g., whether it reports issues or returns a boolean), but it does not. Combined with no usage guidance and a non-readonly POST annotation, the definition leaves key questions unanswered.

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 (uuid), importPaths, and exclusionPatterns. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description states a verb (validate) and resource (external library settings), which is specific enough to know roughly what it does. However, it essentially restates the title and name without distinguishing itself from related siblings like immich_scan_library, immich_update_library, or immich_get_library.

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 versus immich_scan_library, immich_update_library, or immich_get_library_statistics. No preconditions, no when-not-to-use, no alternatives are mentioned; the agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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