Delete a tag

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 fully covered. The description adds the underlying REST operation (DELETE /tags/{id}) but omits what the deletion actually does to assets already carrying the tag, which is the one behavior not derivable from annotations.

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: the title line, one clarifying sentence, and a structured operation line. Slight redundancy between the title echo and the second sentence, but nothing detracts.

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 delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient. It is still missing the downstream effect on tagged assets and whether the operation is reversible, which an agent should know before invoking a destructive tool.

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 parameter is a UUID-typed id, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's phrase 'by its ID' merely restates it without adding format or sourcing detail (e.g. how to obtain the id via immich_get_all_tags).

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 ('Delete a specific tag by its ID'), which is unambiguous and matches the tool name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as immich_untag_assets or immich_update_tag, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 alternatives. The description never clarifies that this deletes the tag entity itself (versus immich_untag_assets, which only detaches a tag from assets), which is the most likely routing confusion.

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