Delete asset metadata by key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description is consistent with those hints and adds the underlying DELETE endpoint, but says nothing about behavior when the key is absent (error vs. silent no-op) or any permission requirement.

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?

Short and front-loaded: purpose first, endpoint last. The opening line duplicates the title verbatim and the second sentence largely restates it, so there is mild redundancy, but nothing is bloated.

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 trivial two-parameter, fully-annotated delete with no output schema, the description covers what the operation does and where it maps in the API. The only meaningful gap is what happens on a missing key, which is minor for a delete-by-key tool.

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 description coverage is 100% ('Asset ID', 'Metadata key'), so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, casing, or key-namespace detail beyond what the schema provides, making 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 (delete) and resource (a single asset metadata key-value pair on a given asset), which an agent can distinguish from immich_get_asset_metadata_by_key and immich_update_asset_metadata. It never explicitly names the bulk sibling immich_delete_bulk_asset_metadata, so the single-vs-bulk distinction is left to inference from 'specific'.

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, and no alternative is named even though immich_delete_bulk_asset_metadata and immich_update_asset_metadata are obvious adjacent choices. The agent must infer routing purely from the tool name.

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