immich-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, which only provide a title. It discloses practical requirements like server read access for local files and the server downloading URLs before upload. This helps the agent understand operational constraints, though it could mention rate limits or authentication needs. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential details in the second. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 complexity (upload with multiple parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers source types and server behavior, but does not explain return values, error handling, or the purpose of optional parameters. With no annotations to fill these gaps, the description should do more to be fully helpful.

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 at 20%, with only the 'source' parameter described in the schema. The description compensates by explaining the semantics of 'source' (local file path or URL), but does not address other parameters like 'device_asset_id' or 'file_created_at'. This leaves gaps, but the description adds some value beyond the schema.

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 specific action ('Upload an asset to Immich') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying the source types ('from a local file path or a URL'). It uses precise verbs and identifies the resource, making it easy to differentiate from other asset-related tools like 'immich.assets.list' or 'immich.assets.update'.

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 clear context on when to use this tool by explaining the two source types (local file path or URL) and their requirements (read access for files, server download for URLs). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar functions, such as bulk uploads or other asset management operations.

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