Remove assets from an album

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not clarify the key behavioral question of whether removed assets are deleted from the library or merely unlinked from the album, nor does it discuss permissions or reversibility.

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 first line duplicates the title verbatim, and the second sentence largely restates it; only the trailing 'Immich operation: DELETE /albums/{id}/assets' line carries new information. Short but not fully front-loaded or waste-free.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the basic mechanics but omits whether assets survive in the library afterward, what happens with invalid IDs, and any auth requirements. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so both parameters (album id, asset ids array) are documented in the schema. The description only restates that removal targets a specific album by ID and adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (assets) with the scope qualifier 'from a specific album by its ID'. An agent can distinguish it from immich_add_assets_to_album or immich_remove_asset_from_stack by name, though the description never explicitly contrasts it with 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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. album ownership/permission requirements), and no mention of the obvious alternatives such as immich_remove_user_from_album or immich_delete_assets. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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