immich-mcp

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

Annotations only provide a title ('Create Activity'), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Add a comment or like') but does not disclose key traits like authentication needs, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with minimal annotation coverage.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, leaving gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively in context.

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 75%, with parameters like 'album_id' and 'type' well-described in the schema. The description adds minimal value by implying 'album or specific asset' relates to 'album_id' and 'asset_id', but it does not clarify semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or dependencies between parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Add a comment or like') and the target resources ('album or specific asset within an album'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'immich.activities.delete' or 'immich.activities.list', which handle deletion and listing of activities respectively, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to choose 'immich.activities.create' over other activity-related tools or when not to use it (e.g., for updates or deletions). It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering only a basic functional statement.

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