immich-mcp

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, indicating safe retries. The description adds valuable context about the dry-run feature for previewing changes without modification, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens when asset_ids are invalid.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, the second adds the key dry-run feature. It's front-loaded with the main action and efficiently conveys essential information without unnecessary details.

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 bulk update tool with 5 parameters, 40% schema coverage, no output schema, and only idempotentHint annotation, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose and dry-run feature but lacks details on error handling, response format, or constraints like maximum asset_ids count, leaving room for improvement given the complexity.

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 40%, with only 'asset_ids' and 'dry_run' having descriptions. The description mentions 'dry_run to preview changes', adding some meaning beyond the schema's 'Preview changes without modifying any assets'. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of is_favorite, is_archived, or rating parameters, leaving gaps in parameter 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 verb 'update' and resource 'metadata for multiple assets', distinguishing it from siblings like 'immich.assets.update' (singular) and 'immich.assets.delete' (different operation). It specifies bulk operation and mentions dry-run capability, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 implies usage for bulk metadata updates and mentions dry-run for previewing changes, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. the singular 'immich.assets.update' tool or provide exclusions/alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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