Delete duplicates

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 structurally. The description adds only the underlying endpoint (DELETE /duplicates) and tag, plus the fact that deletion is by ID list; it says nothing about irreversibility, permissions, or what happens to the removed assets.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb phrase and kept to one operative sentence plus endpoint metadata. The repeated title as the first line is slightly redundant but not wasteful.

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 tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke. It falls short only on sibling disambiguation, which matters here because immich_delete_duplicate exists and could easily be chosen instead.

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% for the single ids parameter, so the schema already documents the UUID array. The phrase 'specified by their IDs' mirrors that without adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline 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) and resource (multiple duplicate assets specified by their IDs), and the 'multiple' wording hints at batch scope. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling immich_delete_duplicate (singular) or immich_resolve_duplicates, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative immich_delete_duplicate or immich_resolve_duplicates. Given three sibling tools all dealing with duplicate removal, the absence of any 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.