Resolve duplicate groups

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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotency profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: metadata is synchronized across assets and duplicates are trashed. However, it uses the word 'deleting' while destructiveHint=false, leaving the recoverability of trashed assets unresolved — a real ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 body is compact, but the opening line simply restates the title verbatim before the substantive sentence, and the trailing endpoint/tag line is provenance filler. Roughly one of three lines earns its place.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations that only cover the safety/idempotency flags, the description leaves gaps: permission requirements, whether the operation is reversible, and what a partial failure across multiple groups does. Adequate but not complete.

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 nested keepAssetIds/trashAssetIds fields are documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the groups payload, its structure, or constraints such as minItems.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Resolve duplicate groups') and goes further to state the mechanism: synchronizing metadata across assets and deleting/trashing duplicates. This distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like immich_get_asset_duplicates, though it never explicitly contrasts with immich_delete_duplicate / immich_delete_duplicates, which sound similar.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. that duplicate groups must first be identified via immich_get_asset_duplicates), and no named alternative. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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