Empty a queue

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 the destructive nature is covered. The description adds only the effect (removes all jobs) and the underlying DELETE endpoint. It does not disclose whether this requires elevated permissions, whether it affects running jobs, or how the 'failed' parameter changes behavior, so it adds modest context above the 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?

The content is front-loaded with the purpose and is very short. The added 'Immich operation' line is redundant with the tool name and could be omitted, but overall it is efficient and there is no 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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it does and how to invoke it via the required name. It omits the meaning of the 'failed' parameter and any permission context, leaving some gaps, but is adequate for a minimally complex 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 schema documents both parameters including the full enum for 'name'. The description does not explain the 'failed' boolean parameter, which is the one parameter that could change behavior. With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline is 3.

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 clear verb (empty) and resource (queue), and the expanded sentence 'Removes all jobs from the specified queue' clarifies what emptying means. It is not differentiated from siblings like immich_run_queue_command_legacy, but no sibling competes for the same purpose, so this is clear without explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose and the required queue name parameter; an agent can infer when to call it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other queue operations or prerequisites such as needing admin rights, so it is implied rather than stated.

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