Remove assets from a shared link

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying DELETE operation and the individual-link-type constraint, but does not clarify that only the link association is removed (not the underlying assets) or note auth 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?

Short and front-loaded, leading with the action. There is mild duplication between the title line and the first sentence, plus an operational metadata line, but nothing is bloated.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with fully covered schema and annotations carrying the safety hints, the description is adequate; the only real omission is what the removal does and does not affect. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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 'id' and 'assetIds' documented as uuid-formatted values in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond 'by its ID', so with the schema doing the heavy lifting 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), resource (assets), and scope (from a specific shared link by its ID), which is clear. It does not name the sibling it is distinguished from (immich_add_shared_link_assets or immich_remove_shared_link), so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 note 'This endpoint is only relevant for shared link of type individual' gives a real applicability condition, which is useful. However, it never names an alternative tool or explains the add/remove counterpart, so routing guidance is only implied.

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