immich-mcp

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating this is a destructive but idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the dry-run recommendation for safety, the force parameter's effect (bypassing trash), and constraints about favorited/album assets. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides procedural guidance with parameter references, and the third gives critical constraints. Each sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words, making it front-loaded and highly concise.

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 (destructive operation with safety mechanisms) and lack of output schema, the description does well by explaining the dry-run workflow, permanent deletion option, and asset constraints. It could slightly improve by hinting at the response format (e.g., what dry_run returns), but it's largely complete for safe usage.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (asset_ids, force, dry_run) thoroughly. The description mentions force and dry_run parameters but doesn't add significant semantic details beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3 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 ('Delete specific assets from duplicate groups') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'immich.duplicates.dismiss' (which likely marks duplicates as dismissed rather than deleting them) and 'immich.assets.delete' (which deletes general assets, not specifically from duplicate groups). The verb+resource combination is precise and differentiated.

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 usage guidance: 'Always run with dry_run=true first to confirm what will be deleted' (when to use initially), 'Set force=true to permanently delete (bypass trash)' (when to use for permanent deletion), and 'Do NOT delete assets that are favorited or belong to albums without explicit user approval' (when NOT to use). This covers both procedural steps and exclusion criteria.

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