immich-mcp

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

Annotations only provide a title ('Create Album'), so the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates an album, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if asset IDs must exist), error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with no 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 front-loads the core action ('Create a new album') and includes key optional feature ('with an optional list of asset IDs'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 3 parameters, low schema coverage (33%), no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, parameter usage, and expected outcomes, failing to compensate for the structured data gaps, which could hinder effective tool invocation.

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 low (33%), with only 'album_name' documented. The description mentions 'optional list of asset IDs,' which hints at 'asset_ids' parameter, adding some value. However, it doesn't explain 'description' parameter or provide deeper semantics like format constraints, leaving gaps despite partial compensation.

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 ('Create a new album') and resource ('album'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'immich.albums.update' or 'immich.shared_links.create' that might also create related resources, missing 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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing asset IDs from other tools), when to use 'immich.albums.update' instead for modifications, or any context-specific triggers, leaving usage unclear.

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