clear_deletion_cache

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It clearly warns that this action 'removes recovery capability for deleted items,' indicating a destructive, irreversible effect. The safety check (acknowledged='CLEAR') is highlighted. Additional detail about side effects or immediacy would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the action, then add the constraint and a crucial warning. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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 mutation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety requirement, and a critical warning. It lacks details about return values or error handling, but that is acceptable given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters described). The description adds minimal extra meaning: it restates the acknowledgement requirement with the word 'safety' and mentions optional project filtering. While adequate, it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Clear recovery cache entries.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'recover_deleted_items' (which restores) and 'get_deletion_cache_stats' (which reads), leaving no ambiguity about the core function.

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 requires the 'CLEAR' acknowledgement for safety and allows optional project filtering. It includes a strong warning about removing recovery capability, guiding the agent to use this tool only when permanent deletion is intended. However, it does not explicitly contrast with tools like 'cancel_deletion' or 'recover_deleted_items' for nuanced decisions.

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