Gemini Create Cache Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that content is uploaded once and reused, but says nothing about cache lifetime/expiry, whether caches persist until deleted, storage or permission implications, or what happens when the TTL lapses.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the rationale. No filler, though the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first's 'repeated queries' phrasing.

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 no explanation, and the schema fully documents parameters. Missing is the relationship to the sibling cache tools and cache lifetime behavior, which an agent needs to use this correctly within the cache workflow.

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 100%, so all six parameters (model, content, file_path, ttl_minutes, display_name, system_instruction) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraint detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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+resource ('Create a content cache') and explains the effect on repeated queries, so the agent understands what the tool produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling cache tools such as gemini_query_cache_tool, gemini_list_caches_tool, or gemini_delete_cache_tool.

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?

'for repeated queries' implies the scenario in which this tool is useful, which is real usage context. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the query/list/delete cache siblings, so the agent must infer the lifecycle on its own.

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