mcp_flush_cache

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Clear all caches and transients' but does not disclose what exactly gets destroyed (e.g., object cache, page cache, transients), whether the operation is reversible, or any potential side effects. This is insufficient for a destructive action.

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 sentence that front-loads the action. It is concise but could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., stating what is cleared). No wasted words.

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 absence of parameters and output schema, the description provides a basic understanding. However, it lacks details on the scope of clearance (all types?) and behavior (e.g., whether it's synchronous). A more complete description would mention what caches are included.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description clarifies that the tool clears caches and transients, which adds meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Clear' and explicitly names the resources 'all caches and transients'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'mcp_flush_rewrite' which flushes rewrite rules, not caches.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mcp_optimize_tables or mcp_flush_rewrite). No mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or what to consider before flushing.

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