immich-mcp

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive but idempotent operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as what happens to associated assets, confirmation requirements, or error conditions. It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers minimal value beyond them.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 destructive nature (per annotations), one parameter with full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about effects (e.g., whether deletion is permanent, impacts on assets) or usage guidance, leaving gaps for an agent to infer safely.

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 the single parameter 'tag_id' documented as 'Tag UUID'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as format examples or where to obtain the ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a tag by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'immich.assets.delete' or 'immich.activities.delete' beyond specifying the resource type, which is a minor gap.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the tag ID from 'immich.tags.list' or 'immich.tags.get'), nor does it specify when deletion is appropriate versus updating or other operations.

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