Delete a cached plan

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

Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description reveals concrete runtime behavior: missing keys return deleted=false. It also discloses an auth requirement ('tool policy gate') and clarifies the deletion is scoped to the exact plan-cache entry. These details meaningfully exceed annotation-only information.

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?

Every sentence carries distinct value: purpose, usage trigger, sibling exclusion, behavioral semantics, and auth. The most important identifying information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple single-parameter destructive tool with complete annotations and an output schema, the description covers usage, edge-case behavior (missing key), and access control. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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 parameter already documented as the exact key previously passed to plan_cache_put. The description reinforces this by saying 'exact plan-cache entry for task_description,' but adds no new format, constraints, or semantic details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 identifies the action ('Delete the exact plan-cache entry'), the target resource ('plan-cache entry for task_description'), and the exact key semantics. It also distinguishes itself from memory_delete, which prevents confusion among sibling tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use to drop a stale template') and names the alternative for a different use case ('Does not delete memory nodes (that is memory_delete)'). This gives an agent clear routing guidance without needing to inspect sibling schemas.

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