Delete an activity

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context (the target is a like or comment, scoped to an album or asset) and the underlying HTTP operation, but says nothing about authorization requirements or whether the removal is permanent.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the clarifying sentence; the trailing 'Immich operation: DELETE /activities/{id} · tag: Activities' line is mostly boilerplate that duplicates the endpoint already implied by the name. Overall tight, with only minor redundancy against the title.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema mutation whose safety semantics are carried by annotations, the description supplies the essential missing piece — what an activity is. Only the authorization/ownership requirement and the effect on activity counts remain unstated, which are minor gaps at this 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?

Only one parameter (id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax, format or sourcing guidance for the id beyond what the schema's 'format: uuid' provides — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 an activity) and, crucially, defines what an 'activity' actually is — a like or comment on an album or asset — which is the non-obvious part an agent needs. It does not explicitly name the inverse sibling immich_create_activity, but the mapping is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description never states prerequisites (e.g. must the caller own the activity?), nor routes to any alternative such as removing a like via another endpoint. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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