hac_cache_clear

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is performed in real time and affects cache state, but does not mention permission requirements, side effects, reversibility, or performance impact of a cache clear, which are important for a mutation-like operation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and its benefit. No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, cache-clearing tool with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description gives enough context to understand the tool's purpose and immediate effect. However, it could mention when to invoke it (e.g., after content changes) or any prerequisites, which would better complete the picture.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage (which is trivially true for an empty schema), the baseline is 4. There are no parameters to describe, and the description correctly does not add unnecessary parameter detail.

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 specific verb (clears) and resource (Hybris Region Cache) plus the effect (modified data and CMS pages reflect immediately). Clear enough to distinguish from siblings like hac_solr_reindex, though it doesn't explicitly name which alternative to use for related cache-related operations.

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 explains what the tool does and why (to reflect modified data), which implies a usage context, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hac_solr_reindex or hac_catalog_sync, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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