immich-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive but idempotent operation. The description adds minimal context by specifying what gets deleted ('a comment or like'), but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Delete') and efficiently conveys the purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple deletion with one parameter), high schema coverage (100%), and annotations covering destructive/idempotent hints, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values or potential errors, leaving some gaps for agent understanding.

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 the parameter 'activity_id' fully documented as 'Activity UUID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format details or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a comment or like by activity ID'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'immich.activities.create' or 'immich.activities.list', which would require a 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'immich.activities.create' or 'immich.activities.list'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing activity ID, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific scenarios for usage.

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