Clear paper cache

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the key behavioral nuance that omitting arxiv_id clears the entire cache, which is not directly stated in annotations. It also mentions 'cached files' without contradiction.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, scope, and conditional behavior without any 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?

For a simple deletion tool with an output schema, annotations for destructiveness and idempotency, and a single optional parameter, the description covers the essential behavior. It could mention that clearing the entire cache is irreversible, but the destructiveHint annotation already signals this, so it's sufficiently complete.

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% and the schema already explains that arxiv_id clears one paper's cached PDF+markdown or everything when omitted. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond this, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('cached files') with clear scope: either one paper or the entire cache. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_papers, get_paper, and cache_info, which are read/search operations.

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 gives clear context on what the tool does and its two modes (single paper vs. entire cache). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but given the sibling list, it is the only cache-clearing tool, making the usage context reasonably clear.

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