cdp_cache_put_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Set or update a cache entry,' implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it overwrites existing entries, error handling (e.g., if ID doesn't exist), rate limits, or side effects. The auto-generated key detail is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose ('Set or update a cache entry by ID') and adding a key technical detail. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, errors), and usage guidelines, though the presence of an output schema means it needn't explain return values. For a cache write operation, this leaves significant gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'ID' and implies 'cache entry' but doesn't explain the five parameters (cache_type, id, value, tenant_id, expiry_time) or their meanings (e.g., what cache_type values are valid, what format expiry_time uses). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 ('Set or update') and resource ('a cache entry by ID'), with the specific detail that 'The cache key is auto-generated.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cdp_cache_put_by_group' and 'cdp_cache_put_by_key', which likely use different key mechanisms, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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_put_by_group' or 'cdp_cache_put_by_key', nor does it mention prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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