immich-mcp

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating this is a destructive but idempotent operation. The description adds value by specifying the behavioral effect ('revoking access to its content'), which goes beyond the annotations by explaining what the removal entails. It does not contradict annotations, as 'remove' aligns with destructive, and idempotency is consistent with removal operations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and effect without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Remove a shared link') and follows with the consequence, making it highly concise 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 (simple destructive operation), annotations cover key behavioral traits (destructive, idempotent), and the input schema is fully documented, the description is reasonably complete. However, without an output schema, it does not explain return values or potential errors, leaving a minor gap in contextual information for the agent.

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 parameter 'shared_link_id' fully documented as 'Shared link UUID'. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a shared link') and the resource affected ('shared link'), with the effect 'revoking access to its content' providing additional context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'immich.shared_links.create', 'immich.shared_links.get', 'immich.shared_links.list', and 'immich.shared_links.update' by focusing on deletion/removal rather than creation, retrieval, listing, or modification.

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 when needing to revoke access to shared content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to remove vs. update a shared link) or provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or specific scenarios.

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