immich-mcp

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

Annotations provide 'destructiveHint: true' and 'idempotentHint: true', indicating a destructive and idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context by clarifying that deletion does not affect assets inside the album, which is not covered by annotations. This enhances transparency without contradicting annotations, as 'destructiveHint: true' aligns with 'Delete an album.'

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of two short sentences that directly state the action and a critical clarification. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without any redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (a destructive operation with one parameter), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds key behavioral context about asset preservation. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain return values or error conditions, leaving a minor gap in completeness for a destructive tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'album_id' parameter documented as 'Album UUID.' The description does not add any further details about parameters beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 specific action ('Delete an album') and distinguishes it from potential confusion by explicitly noting 'This does not delete the assets inside it.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'immich.assets.delete' which might delete assets directly, making the purpose unambiguous and well-defined.

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 implies usage by specifying what the tool does (deleting albums without affecting assets), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'immich.albums.remove_assets' for removing assets from an album without deletion). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the context somewhat open-ended.

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