manage_cache

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the underlying call (cmn.invalidate_all_caches), the server-side relay, and error behavior (ValueError as error dict with origin='houdini'). Side-effect details for warmup are not specified, but the core behaviors are transparent.

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 organized as a scannable action list with a clear opening line. The 'PR 6' note is slightly out-of-place and may distract, but the structure is otherwise efficient and readable.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors, side effects, and error handling. It does not detail return formats for invalidate/warmup, but the essential context for correct invocation is present.

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?

The sole parameter 'action' is fully documented in the description, explaining each possible value and its meaning. Since schema coverage is 0%, this rich explanation is essential and completely compensates.

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 it manages the Houdini-side NodeTypeCache and enumerates three distinct actions (stats, invalidate, warmup) with their specific effects. This distinguishes it from sibling cache tools like clear_cache and get_cache_status.

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 action list effectively defines when to use each behavior, but it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. The context is clear, though alternatives are not excluded.

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