Remove edits from an existing asset

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 covered. The description adds value beyond that by specifying exactly what is destroyed — ALL edit actions (crop, rotate, mirror) — which tells the agent the scope of the removal. It omits reversibility and permission requirements.

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?

Efficient and front-loaded: the operative sentence defining what is removed comes immediately. The first line merely restates the title and the third is provenance metadata (operation/tag), which is mild redundancy but not harmful.

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 one-parameter mutation whose annotations already carry the destructive/idempotent profile, the description covers purpose and removal scope adequately. No output schema exists, but a removal endpoint needs little return explanation, so nothing critical is missing.

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 'id' (uuid), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (remove) and resource (edits), and clarifies what 'edits' means (crop, rotate, mirror) scoped to a single asset. It is clear, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with (immich_get_asset_edits / immich_edit_asset), so an agent relies on the name alone for that 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?

The purpose implies when to use it (undo all edits on an asset), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance. It does not tell the agent how to remove a single edit vs all edits, nor reference related tools.

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