Delete assets by ID, moving them to trash by default; use the force option for permanent removal.
Delete assets by IDs. Moves to trash by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Array of asset IDs to delete | |
| force | No | Permanently delete (skip trash) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: deletion is recoverable by default (moves to trash) and irreversible only with force. However, it omits permission/auth requirements, retention of trashed items, and what the call returns, so meaningful gaps remain.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the default-behavior qualifier. Every sentence earns its place.
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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical trash-vs-permanent distinction but leaves auth/permission needs and post-call behavior unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps for an irreversible-capable 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both the ids array and the force flag are already documented in the schema, including force meaning 'skip trash'. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or batching-limit detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete assets') plus the batch mechanism ('by IDs'), and the second sentence scopes the default behavior. It is clear on its own, though with no sibling delete tool it does not need to differentiate itself from an alternative.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to an alternative path even though immich_bulk_update exists and could plausibly overlap. The default-vs-force distinction is stated as behavior rather than as guidance for choosing it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.