Delete acknowledgements

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 safety is covered. The description adds only the raw endpoint and tag, without saying what is irreversibly removed or what happens if the optional 'types' filter is omitted.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the resource first. Minor redundancy in restating 'Delete acknowledgements' from the title and 'Delete specific synchronization acknowledgments', but no wasted prose.

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 destructive, zero-required-param tool with no output schema, the annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers the filter. The main gap is whether omitting 'types' deletes all acknowledgments, which is left unanswered.

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 'types' parameter is documented in the schema (enum of sync entity types, described as 'types (request body)'). The description adds no meaning beyond that, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete specific synchronization acknowledgments'), which distinguishes it from sibling reads/writes like immich_get_sync_ack and immich_send_sync_ack. It is clear but does not explicitly name those siblings to sharpen the distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this versus immich_send_sync_ack or immich_get_sync_ack, nor on prerequisites such as auth or why a client would delete acks. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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