immich_delete_duplicateDismiss a duplicate group by its ID, unlinking all assets without deleting them. Use to clear duplicate groupings while preserving original files.
Dismiss a duplicate group
Dismiss a duplicate group by its ID, unlinking all assets in the group without deleting them.
Immich operation: DELETE /duplicates/{id} · tag: Duplicates
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | format: uuid |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 earns credit by resolving the tension the annotations create: it explains that this 'delete' does not destroy assets but only unlinks them. It omits auth/rate-limit context, so not a 5.
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, with the key behavioral nuance in the second sentence. The first line simply repeats the title, which is minor redundancy, and the trailing 'Immich operation' metadata is useful provenance rather than padding.
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 mutation tool whose annotations already cover safety, the definition is nearly complete: it explains what the mutation actually does and which endpoint it maps to. The only meaningful omission is how it relates to the plural delete/resolve duplicate siblings.
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 100% for the single id parameter, so the schema carries the documentation burden. The description only adds that the ID refers to the duplicate group, which is a marginal clarification over the schema's uuid type. 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 ('dismiss a duplicate group by its ID') and clarifies the actual effect: assets are unlinked, not deleted. This is genuinely helpful given the 'delete' name. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like immich_delete_duplicates (plural) or immich_resolve_duplicates, which an agent could easily confuse with it.
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, when-not, or alternative guidance. With siblings immich_delete_duplicates and immich_resolve_duplicates operating in the same duplicate-handling space, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.