Refresh Creatio feature toggle cache

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool invalidates the cache globally for all users and makes changes visible. It does not mention any destructive side effects or performance implications, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 only three sentences, with the main action in the first sentence, usage context in the second, and parameter guidance in the third. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to call it, how to parameterize it, and where to find more information.

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% for the only parameter, featureCode, but the description adds meaningful guidance on when to pass it vs. omit it. This goes beyond the schema's description, which only states the parameter is optional and gives an example.

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 tool invalidates the in-memory feature-toggle cache for all users, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on cache invalidation after data changes, not on directly modifying data like the other 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 says to call this after changing rows in Feature or AdminUnitFeatureState via standard create/update/delete tools, providing clear usage context. It also explains how to use the optional featureCode parameter to scope the invalidation, and points to a guide for full workflow.

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