Remove assets from a memory

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 that only the memory-asset association is removed (assets are detached, not deleted), which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about reversibility, bulk limits, or what happens when an ID is not in the memory.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the operational detail at the end. There is minor redundancy: the title is restated verbatim as the first line and then rephrased in the second sentence.

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, no-output-schema mutation the annotations carry much of the burden, and the description is sufficient to call the tool. It nevertheless omits whether the removal is permanent, whether the assets survive elsewhere, and any behavior on unknown IDs.

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 two parameters (id, ids) are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrasing ('a list of asset IDs', 'a specific memory') loosely maps to ids and id but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Remove ... asset IDs from a specific memory') and the underlying operation (DELETE /memories/{id}/assets), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the clearly related sibling immich_add_memory_assets or immich_delete_assets, which is the main gap.

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 guidance on when to use this versus immich_add_memory_assets (the inverse) or immich_delete_assets (which would destroy the asset itself rather than just unlink it from a memory). The agent must infer the correct tool purely from the name.

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