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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by identifying the specific cache layers affected and the published-state condition for nginx cache clearing.

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 compact, front-loads the action and affected caches, and then states the accepted identifiers. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 relatively simple cache-clearing operation with annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description provides enough context about what is cleared and under what condition. The main remaining gap is the lack of clarity around the optional parameters and whether one identifier is required.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by saying to pass either article_id or article_uuid, implying the two are alternative identifiers. It does not clarify whether at least one is required, whether both may be supplied, or which takes precedence.

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 verb and resource: clearing an article's cache, including Redis slave-list cache and nginx proxy cache for published articles. This is more specific than the tool name alone, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar sibling tools like clear_page_cache or purge_nginx_cache.

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 when the tool applies by naming the caches involved and noting that nginx cache is only cleared once the article is published. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as clear_page_cache, clear_collection_cache, or purge_nginx_cache.

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