immich-mcp

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

The annotations provide idempotentHint=true, indicating safe retry behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this by clarifying that 'The assets themselves are not deleted,' which addresses a potential behavioral concern (asset preservation) not covered by annotations. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a critical clarification. Every word serves a purpose, with no wasted information, 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 moderate complexity (mutation with idempotency), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, key behavioral trait (non-destructive to assets), and usage context, though it could optionally mention response format or error conditions for full completeness.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (album UUID and asset UUIDs list). The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as format details or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Remove one or more assets from an album') and resource ('album'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'immich.albums.delete' by clarifying that 'The assets themselves are not deleted.' This prevents confusion with asset deletion operations.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to remove assets from an album without deleting them), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives. However, the distinction from deletion tools is implied, making the usage context reasonably clear.

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