immich-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: clarifies that 'asset files are NOT deleted — only the duplicate grouping is removed' and emphasizes the dry-run safety practice. While annotations provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds practical safety guidance and clarifies the nature of the destructive operation.

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?

Three tightly focused sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose, second clarifies what dismissal means, third provides critical usage guidance. Every sentence adds essential information for correct tool invocation.

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 operation with good annotations but no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what dismissal means, safety practices, and when to use it. The only minor gap is lack of information about return values or confirmation of operation success.

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 fully documented in the schema. The description adds context about dry_run usage ('Always run with dry_run=true first') but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This 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 ('dismiss duplicate groups'), resource ('assets'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by contrasting with immich.duplicates.delete. It explains what dismissal means versus deletion, providing clear differentiation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when assets are intentionally kept as separate copies and should no longer appear in the duplicate list') and provides a clear best practice ('Always run with dry_run=true first'). This gives specific operational guidance beyond basic functionality.

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