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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the version prerequisite 'Needs Bridge 1.7.0+' and the fact that Bridge-originated edits self-purge, which prevents redundant calls. It doesn't state failure modes or whether purging can disrupt anything live, which matters given destructiveHint=true — so not a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what it clears, then the decision rule, then the hard prerequisite. No filler and nothing buried at the end that an agent needs first.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the essentials are present: scope, plugin coverage, version gate, and redundancy warning. The remaining gap is that 'site' is never characterized, leaving one of two inputs under-specified.

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 coverage is 50% and the unlabeled 'site' parameter gets no explanation of its expected form (URL, alias, ID). The description's 'one page or the whole site' corroborates post_id but adds nothing the schema description doesn't already say.

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?

Specific verb ('Clear') plus specific resource ('the site's page cache') with concrete scope ('one page or the whole site') and named supported plugins. An agent immediately knows what this does and what it acts on, with no ambiguity against any sibling in the list.

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?

Gives both the positive trigger ('use this after a change made some other way') and the explicit exclusion ('Bridge edits already clear it themselves'), plus the goal state ('so a change shows without a login'). This is the when/when-not/alternative pattern at full strength.

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