cachly-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the deletion action but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, if it requires specific permissions, error handling for non-existent keys, performance implications (e.g., atomicity), or what happens to associated data. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete') and target. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying essential information.

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 (destructive operation with 2 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error cases), parameter details (e.g., 'instance_id' meaning), or return values. For a cache deletion tool in a family with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 50% (only 'keys' parameter has a description). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain 'instance_id' (e.g., format, how to obtain it) or provide context for 'keys' (e.g., key patterns, wildcards). Since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'instance_id' parameter.

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 target ('one or more keys from a running cache instance'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like cache_get or cache_set by specifying deletion rather than retrieval or storage. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from delete_instance (which deletes entire cache instances rather than keys).

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., cache instance must be running), when not to use it (e.g., for bulk deletion vs. individual keys), or refer to sibling tools like cache_exists (to check before deletion) or delete_instance (for different scope). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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