cache_propose_invalidate

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

No annotations provided; description adds 'Warns when estimated_affected exceeds 10000', a behavioral trait. Lacks detail on proposal lifecycle (e.g., pending status), but adequate for a non-destructive proposal tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then conditional rules, then behavioral note. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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?

Covers input parameter dependencies and a behavioral warning. No output schema, so return values not required. However, does not explain proposal lifecycle (e.g., pending approval) or how to retrieve proposal ID.

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 100%, but description adds significant meaning: explains which filter_kind values pair with which cache types and required parameters (filter_expression vs filter_value). Also notes warning threshold.

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?

States clearly 'Propose a cache invalidation for review', a specific verb+resource. Distinguishes from siblings like cache_approve_proposal, cache_reject_proposal by being the creation step.

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?

Explicitly describes how filter shape depends on cache type (semantic_cache vs agent_cache), guiding parameter selection. Could mention when not to use, but provides clear context.

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