clear_cache

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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only but non-destructive, and the description usefully clarifies that only local cache and exports are deleted, not remote notebooks. It does not state whether deleted exports are irreversible or how the operation reports partial failures, which matters given destructiveHint=false while exports are being removed.

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 tight sentences: the scope boundary comes first, then the mode-specific rule. No filler, and the most decision-relevant conditional is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description covers scope and the purge_all branch adequately. The main gap is the default path — what gets cleared when purge_all is false and no notebook_id is given — which an agent could plausibly hit given zero required parameters.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates by explaining purge_all's semantics (full wipe of all local state) and the resulting parameter interaction — notebook_id becomes unnecessary. The default no-flag behavior (presumably per-notebook clearing) is only implicit.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Borra la caché local y las exportaciones') plus a crucial scope boundary: it does not affect NotebookLM itself. The resource is unambiguous, though it never contrasts itself with the related sibling sync_notebook, which also deals with local state.

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?

Gives a clear usage context ('útil antes de un refresco masivo') and the conditional precondition that notebook_id is unnecessary when purge_all=True. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating what happens when neither parameter is supplied.

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