Delete a shared link

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 only restates that it deletes a shared link and maps the underlying DELETE endpoint; it adds no extra behavioral context such as whether linked assets are affected, permission requirements, or irreversibility details.

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 very short and front-loads the action and scope. However, the first line duplicates the title, and the second line partially restates the same idea, creating minor redundancy.

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 low-complexity single-parameter deletion tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could be stronger only by clarifying side effects or when to choose this sibling over related shared-link operations.

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 schema already documents the single required parameter with 100% description coverage, including its UUID format. The description's 'by its ID' adds only minimal context that the ID refers to the shared link, so it does not go beyond the structured 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: delete a shared link, and narrows scope with 'by its ID'. This makes the core action unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as immich_remove_shared_link_assets or immich_update_shared_link.

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 deletion tool versus alternatives like updating a link or removing assets from a link. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the generic 'by its ID' phrasing.

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