cdp_cache_delete_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a cache entry and returns '204 on success', which implies a destructive write operation and a specific HTTP-like success code. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: no mention of authentication requirements, error responses, rate limits, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 short sentences that state the core action and success response. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and follows with behavioral detail about the return code.

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 this is a destructive operation with 3 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists (though not provided here), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and success code but misses critical context: parameter meanings, authentication needs, error handling, and how it differs from sibling deletion tools. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it should still address the other gaps for a mutation tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (cache_type, id, tenant_id) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about these parameters—what they represent, valid values, formats, or how they interact. The description mentions 'by ID' which hints at the 'id' parameter but doesn't explain what 'cache_type' means or when 'tenant_id' is required. With 0% schema coverage and no parameter guidance in the description, this is inadequate.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a cache entry by ID'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_cache_delete_by_group' and 'cdp_cache_delete_by_key' by specifying the deletion method (by ID). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'cache entry' refers to in this context, leaving some ambiguity about the resource scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cdp_cache_delete_by_group' or 'cdp_cache_delete_by_key'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or any context about when this deletion method is appropriate compared to other cache deletion methods available in the sibling tools list.

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