immich-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it explains the trash mechanism (bypassable with force) and recommends a preview mode with dry_run. This enhances understanding of the tool's behavior without contradicting 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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second provides critical usage guidance. There's no wasted verbiage.

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 destructive tool with good annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) and full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It adds important behavioral context (trash mechanism, preview recommendation). The main gap is lack of output schema, but the description compensates somewhat by explaining the dry_run preview functionality.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic context: it mentions using dry_run for preview and force for permanent deletion, but this mostly reiterates schema details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 one or more assets') and resource ('assets'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'immich.assets.get' or 'immich.assets.update'. It's precise about what the tool does without being tautological.

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 explicit guidance on when to use certain parameters: 'Always use dry_run=true first to preview' and 'Set force=true to permanently delete (skip trash)'. This gives clear operational instructions for safe usage, though it doesn't mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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