clear_server_cache

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose what is discarded and that CRM data is untouched. However, it omits the consequences of clearing authentication tokens (forced re-authentication, possible follow-on call failures), whether the operation is reversible, and whether it affects other sessions or users.

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, zero filler, and the highest-value information (what is cleared) is front-loaded. The scope disclaimer follows immediately rather than being buried.

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 zero-parameter, no-output, unannotated utility the description covers what it does and what it leaves alone, but leaves meaningful gaps: no guidance on when to call it, no warning about the downstream effect of losing auth tokens, and no note on whether the clear is global or scoped to the caller.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline a 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter claims are made that could conflict with the empty schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb (clear) with two named resources (local cached metadata, authentication tokens) plus the effect on query continuations. The added 'Does not change CRM data' line separates it cleanly from the surrounding sibling tools, which all mutate or read CRM metadata and records.

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 never says when to invoke this tool — no trigger conditions (e.g., after schema edits, stale metadata, auth failures) and no alternatives or exclusions. The only boundary offered is a negative statement about what it does not affect, which is scope, not usage guidance.

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