Delete an asset file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful extra fact — the record is removed from the database, not just the file — but says nothing about permissions required, whether the underlying object storage file is also purged, or recoverability.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the core action stated first. The opening line duplicates the title and 'Delete a file' repeats the first sentence, a small amount of redundancy but nothing that obscures the message.

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 one-parameter destructive delete with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It could still clarify the asset-file vs asset boundary and what happens to the backing binary, which are the questions an agent would have here.

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?

There is a single required id parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents the input. The description adds no semantics about what the id identifies (asset file id vs asset id), leaving the baseline 3 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 asset file) and adds that the file is removed from the database. It is clear on its own, but does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings like immich_delete_assets, immich_delete_asset_metadata, or immich_get_asset_file — the 'asset file' vs 'asset' distinction is left implicit.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives in a sibling set containing several other delete/asset-file tools. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely from the name.

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