Delete database backup

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 agent knows this is an irreversible-style write. The description adds the concrete endpoint (DELETE /admin/database-backups) and that the target is identified by filename, but says nothing about whether the file is permanently removed from disk or whether the action can be undone.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the action and followed by the identifying detail, with no filler prose. The only waste is mild repetition between the title line and the 'Delete a backup by its filename' line.

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 admin tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile, the description is close to sufficient but leaves two gaps: it never says the parameter is a list of multiple filenames (the schema takes an array), and it does not state whether deletion is permanent or recoverable via the restore flow.

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 reported at 100%, but the schema's only text is the placeholder 'backups (request body)', so the schema itself conveys little. The description's 'by its filename' adds real meaning by telling the agent the array elements are backup filenames, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the naming.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete database backup') and adds the key discriminating detail 'by its filename', which separates it from sibling list/download/upload backup tools. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the verb alone.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance; the admin tag hints at required privilege but the description never states that an admin context is mandatory. Nothing routes the agent between this tool and immich_list_database_backups, immich_download_database_backup, or immich_upload_database_backup.

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