purge_cache_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses plan gating (tags/hosts/prefixes require Enterprise) and a limit (files max 30), which is real behavioral context. However, it omits the most important trait for a purge operation: that it is destructive/irreversible and may require specific cache-purge permissions or hit rate limits.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact modal-selection rule, then Args/Returns blocks. Every line carries information; the only mild redundancy is repeating '(Enterprise)' on three lines.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers selection modes, plan constraints, and per-parameter meaning. The notable gap for a mutation tool with zero annotations is the absence of a destructiveness/permanence warning, which an agent needs before invoking a purge.

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, and it largely does: each of the 6 parameters gets a one-line explanation, plus constraints like the 32-char hex format for zone_id and the max-30 limit for files. Only default/null behavior and whether modes can be combined are left unstated.

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 and resource ('Purge cached content from Cloudflare's edge'), which is concrete and immediately distinguishable from the unrelated siblings (WAF rules, DNS records, page rules). No ambiguity about what the tool operates on.

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?

'Use one of: purge_everything, files, tags, hosts, or prefixes' tells the agent the purge modes are mutually exclusive alternatives, and the Enterprise-plan note tells it which modes are gated. It stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites beyond plan tier.

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