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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by naming concrete side effects (Redis slave list cache + nginx proxy cache, AMP included) and the conditional 'once it is published' behavior, which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of describing the response or what happens if the page is unpublished.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary action and target front-loaded, followed by the identifier requirement. No filler. The parenthetical 'AMP included' is compact and informative rather than noise.

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 cache-purge mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description covers what is cleared and how to identify the page, but omits when to prefer it over the many overlapping purge/clear siblings, what the result looks like, and the behavior when the page is not yet published.

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 0% and both parameters are optional with null defaults, so the description carries the burden. It does usefully signal that page_id OR page_uuid is acceptable (an either/or identifier choice not expressed in the schema), but it doesn't state precedence when both are given, nor the expected format of page_uuid, nor what happens if neither is supplied.

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 + resource: 'Clear the cache of a page', with the concrete caches named (Redis slave list cache, nginx proxy cache, AMP included). This clearly identifies the target resource as a page, which implicitly separates it from clear_article_cache and clear_collection_cache, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from purge_nginx_cache, purge_cache_group, or flush_website_slave_list, which overlap heavily.

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?

'Pass page_id or page_uuid' is a parameter instruction, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to call this versus the numerous sibling cache tools (purge_nginx_cache, purge_cache_group, purge_website_cache_all, flush_website_slave_list, get_cache_targets), nor any prerequisite such as needing the page to exist or be published first.

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