Delete a workflow

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and re-execution profile. The description adds only the REST mapping (DELETE /workflows/{id}) and tag, which is useful provenance but does not address what deletion destroys (e.g. associated triggers, logs) or whether auth is required. Baseline 3 given annotations carry the safety burden.

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 purpose is stated in the first line and repeated by the ID-based mechanism second. No filler. The repeated 'Delete a workflow' in the title and description is mildly redundant, keeping it from a 5.

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 single-param destructive delete, the annotations plus the REST endpoint reference cover the essentials an agent needs to call it. However, no output schema exists and the description says nothing about what happens after deletion or whether side effects (workflow triggers/logs) are affected, leaving a modest completeness gap.

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% with a single required uuid 'id', so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond 'by its ID'. Baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (workflow) plus the mechanism (by its ID). Clear and unambiguous. Siblings like immich_delete_stack or immich_delete_person exist but the target resource is named explicitly, so an agent can route correctly, though the description does not call out how it differs from those siblings.

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-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. It never mentions siblings such as immich_delete_stacks or immich_update_workflow, nor does it flag that this permanently removes a resource. The agent gets no routing signal beyond the name.

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