immich-mcp

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

Annotations provide 'destructiveHint: true', indicating a potentially irreversible action. The description adds value by specifying that 'the source person will be merged into the target' and 'will be removed', clarifying the destructive nature beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't detail side effects like what happens to associated assets or metadata, or any rate limits.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Merge two person clusters into one') and follows with critical behavioral detail ('The source person will be merged into the target'). Every word serves a clear purpose.

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 destructive merge operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and basic behavior, but lacks details on error conditions, confirmation requirements, or what the merge entails (e.g., combining faces, metadata). Given the annotations handle safety, it's adequate but could be more thorough.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions: 'target_person_id' as 'Person UUID to merge into' and 'source_person_id' as 'Person UUID to merge from (will be removed)'. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, only reinforcing the merge direction. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 specific action ('merge two person clusters into one') and identifies the resource ('person clusters'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'immich.people.get' or 'immich.people.update' by specifying a merging operation rather than retrieval or modification of individual person records.

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 merging person clusters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'immich.people.update' or 'immich.people.delete'. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as verifying person IDs exist, or exclusions, like whether merging is reversible.

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