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 'visibility (hidden/visible)', which hints at a toggle-like behavior, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, or effects on related data (e.g., assets). With annotations covering idempotency, the description adds some value but lacks depth on mutation risks or system impact.

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 ('Update a person's') and specifies the updatable fields. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 a mutation tool with annotations (idempotency) but no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers what the tool does but lacks context on prerequisites, side effects, or error handling. For a 3-parameter tool with low schema coverage, it should provide more guidance on usage and behavioral nuances to compensate, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 33%, with only 'person_id' documented. The description adds meaning by specifying that 'name' and 'is_hidden' correspond to updating a person's name or visibility, clarifying their purposes beyond the schema's generic titles. However, it doesn't detail constraints (e.g., name length, visibility effects) or explain that 'null' values might skip updates, 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 action ('Update') and the resource ('a person's name or visibility'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies what can be updated (name or hidden/visible status), which distinguishes it from general person-update tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'immich.people.merge' or 'immich.assets.update', which could handle related but different operations.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a person_id from 'immich.people.list' or 'immich.people.get'), exclusions (e.g., not for merging people), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'immich.people.merge' for combining people or 'immich.assets.update' for asset-related updates. Usage is implied only by the action itself.

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