Clear session caches

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious blast-radius fact not present in structured data: that it 'affects shared caches' despite the session-scoped name. It still omits what exactly is destroyed and whether re-population is automatic.

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?

Two short sentences, no waste, and the purpose statement is front-loaded ahead of the caveat. Nothing could be removed without losing routing or risk information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the destructive/idempotent profile. However, for a destructive operation the description never says what is cleared or what breaks as a result, leaving the agent to infer consequences from 'affects shared caches' alone.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The empty schema is consistent with the description, which implies no configuration is required.

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 states a concrete verb+resource ('cache reset') that matches the tool name, and the clause 'Not needed for persona switches' distinguishes it from the adjacent refresh_persona_context sibling. It is clear but terse, and 'Administrative' is doing a little vague lifting rather than naming the exact scope of what is cleared.

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?

It gives one explicit when-NOT ('Not needed for persona switches'), which is genuinely useful routing information, but never states the positive condition that should trigger a call. Usage is only implied by the word 'Administrative'.

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