immich-mcp

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, indicating safe retry behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, stating the basic action but not covering aspects like permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens if assets are already in the album. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds limited value given the 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, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential 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 mutation tool with idempotentHint annotation but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details about return values, error conditions, or the broader context of album-asset relationships that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 100% schema description coverage, both parameters are well-documented in the schema (album UUID and asset UUIDs list). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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') and target resources ('one or more assets to an album'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'immich.albums.remove_assets' beyond the opposite action, missing explicit sibling distinction that would warrant 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., album must exist), when not to use it, or comparison with related tools like 'immich.albums.create' or 'immich.albums.update' for album management.

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