mcp_flush_cache

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses little: it does not say whether the flush is reversible, whether it degrades site performance, whether object/page/transient caches are all included, or what permissions are required. Crucially, 'all caches' is ambiguous against the single 'site' parameter, so the agent cannot tell whether one site or every site is flushed.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead. It is efficient, though arguably terse for an operation with side effects.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema maintenance tool this is nearly sufficient, but the scope question (does 'all caches' span all sites?) and the absence of any safety or prerequisite note leave a real gap for an operation that mutates server state.

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% and the single 'site' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Site id (see list_sites)'. The description adds no scope clarification, such as whether 'all' is bounded by the given site, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Clear') plus the exact resources affected ('all caches and transients'), which is enough to separate it from the nearest sibling mcp_flush_rewrite. It stops short of naming that sibling or explaining how the two differ, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as mcp_flush_rewrite or mcp_update_core for refreshing other stale state. The agent must infer that this is a post-change cache reset step.

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