immich-photo-manager

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that photos are preserved, which is crucial for a deletion tool. However, it doesn't mention whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to shared links or metadata, or what the output contains. The description adds value but leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 earn their place: the first states the core action with important clarification about photo preservation, the second documents the single parameter. No wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded with the most critical information first.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, the description does an adequate job explaining what gets deleted versus preserved. However, with an output schema present (though unseen), the description doesn't need to explain return values. The main gap is lack of guidance on permissions, reversibility, or error conditions, which would be valuable for a deletion operation.

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 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description provides essential semantic context by explaining 'album_id' as 'The album's unique ID.' This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation. However, it doesn't specify format requirements (e.g., UUID, numeric) or where to obtain this ID from sibling tools like 'list_albums'.

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 verb 'Delete' and resource 'album', specifying that it removes only the album container while preserving photos. It distinguishes from potential sibling tools like 'remove_assets_from_album' by clarifying the scope is the album structure itself, not its contents. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'update_album' beyond the obvious verb difference.

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 through the clarification that photos are not deleted, suggesting this tool should be used when only removing the album organization. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'remove_assets_from_album' for content management, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing the album ID from 'list_albums' or 'get_album'.

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