immich-mcp

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

Annotations provide 'idempotentHint: true', indicating safe retries, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions updating metadata fields, which aligns with annotations, but does not disclose permissions needed, rate limits, or effects on existing data. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description lacks depth beyond the basic operation.

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 and scope. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes no unnecessary details, 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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what can be updated but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or return values. With annotations providing idempotency, it meets a baseline but could be more informative for a mutation tool.

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 (25%), with only 'album_id' documented. The description lists updatable fields (name, description, cover asset), which correspond to parameters 'album_name', 'description', and 'album_thumbnail_asset_id', adding some meaning. However, it does not explain parameter formats, constraints, or interactions, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 ('Update') and resource ('album metadata'), specifying the fields that can be updated (name, description, cover asset). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'immich.albums.create' (for creation) and 'immich.albums.delete' (for deletion), but does not explicitly differentiate from 'immich.albums.get' (for retrieval) or 'immich.albums.list' (for listing).

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing album), exclusions (e.g., not for adding/removing assets), or refer to sibling tools like 'immich.albums.add_assets' or 'immich.albums.remove_assets' for related operations.

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