Empty trash

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

The description explicitly claims a permanently destructive operation ('Permanently delete all items in the trash'), while the annotations declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false. That is a direct conflict between the stated behavior and the structured safety hints, which is the most consequential field an agent uses to decide whether to call a tool.

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 description is short and front-loads the irreversible effect in one sentence. Minor waste: the title 'Empty trash' is repeated verbatim as the first line before the substantive sentence, but the operation/tag metadata line is compact and useful.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description needs only to convey what happens and to what scope, which it does. Nothing about invocation is left missing for such a simple tool, though it could have warned about irrecoverability relative to restore_trash.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 with full scope: 'Permanently delete all items in the trash.' An agent can immediately distinguish this from the sibling immich_restore_trash and immich_restore_assets without opening any schema, and the appended 'POST /trash/empty' anchors the operation.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The permanent/irreversible nature of the operation is stated but not framed as a decision point against restore_trash, and no prerequisites (e.g., trash must be non-empty, required permissions) are mentioned.

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