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 no behavioral context beyond what's implied by 'Update.' It doesn't disclose permission requirements, rate limits, or effects on existing settings. However, it doesn't contradict annotations (idempotency aligns with update operations), so it earns a baseline score for adding minimal value beyond structured data.

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 and key parameters. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It's appropriately sized for a mutation tool with multiple parameters.

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 (7 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits critical context: no mention of required permissions, error conditions, response format, or how null values are handled for optional parameters. Annotations cover idempotency but not other behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for agent invocation.

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 (29%), with only 'shared_link_id' and 'expires_at' documented. The description mentions 'expiry, password, download permission,' covering 3 of 7 parameters but lacking details on 'allow_upload,' 'show_metadata,' and 'description.' It adds some meaning beyond the schema (e.g., clarifying 'download permission' relates to 'allow_download'), but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap, aligning with the baseline for partial compensation.

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 ('shared link settings'), specifying three key fields (expiry, password, download permission). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'immich.shared_links.create' (creation) and 'immich.shared_links.remove' (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is specific but could be slightly more precise about the full scope of settings.

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 an existing shared link), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'immich.shared_links.create' for initial setup or 'immich.shared_links.remove' for deletion. Usage is implied from the verb 'Update,' but explicit context is missing.

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