Delete asset metadata

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. The description adds the underlying operation and clarifies that key-value pairs are removed, but does not add further behavioral context such as auth requirements or irreversibility details.

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 short and front-loads the action and scope. The first line duplicates the title, which is slightly redundant, but the remaining two lines are useful and earn their 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?

With annotations covering safety semantics and the schema covering the single parameter completely, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does and when it applies. No output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required.

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% and the single 'items' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including nested assetId and key descriptions. The description adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 ('Delete'), resource ('asset metadata'), and scope ('for multiple assets'). This clearly distinguishes it from the singular sibling immich_delete_asset_metadata and from update operations on bulk metadata.

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 phrase 'for multiple assets' implies the bulk use case and distinguishes it from single-asset deletion, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than instructed.

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