invalidateNFTContractCache

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states that it invalidates cache and forces a refresh, but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., whether it affects all users, requires permissions, or is idempotent), rate limits, or response behavior.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could benefit from structured bullet points or additional detail without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should more thoroughly explain the tool's behavior, return value, and limitations. It only mentions that it forces a refresh on the next query, but lacks details on scope (e.g., user-specific vs global), confirmation, or potential errors.

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%, with both parameters described in the schema. The description does not add extra semantic information beyond the schema; it merely restates the action. Baseline score 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 clearly states the action (Invalidate), the resource (cached metadata for an NFT contract), and the purpose (force refresh on next query). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly being a cache invalidation action rather than a read or write operation.

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 phrase 'to force a refresh on next query' implies usage when fresh contract data is needed after changes, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. No alternative tools are mentioned, though siblings like getNFTMetadata are related.

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