immich-mcp

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

Annotations only provide a title ('Create Tag'), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the creation action and nested tag syntax, but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether duplicates are allowed, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a creation tool with minimal annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states the core action, the second provides critical usage guidance. No wasted words, and the most important information (the nested tag syntax) is included.

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 creation tool with 2 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description provides basic purpose and parameter guidance but lacks information about what happens after creation (return values, success indicators), error handling, or system constraints. It's adequate but has clear gaps given the tool's 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?

With 50% schema description coverage (only the 'name' parameter has a description), the description compensates by explaining the nested tag syntax for the 'name' parameter. However, it doesn't address the 'color' parameter at all, leaving half the parameters without semantic context beyond what the schema minimally provides.

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 ('Create a new tag') and resource ('tag'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like immich.tags.update, immich.tags.delete, immich.tags.get, and immich.tags.list. The mention of nested tags with '/' separator adds specificity beyond just the basic create operation.

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 for usage by explaining how to structure nested tags with '/' separator, which helps guide proper parameter input. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like immich.tags.update or when not to use it (e.g., for existing tags).

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