Google Ads Clear Cache

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it confirms idempotency (cache clearing is repeatable), non-destructiveness to ad accounts, and lack of credential requirements. This aligns with and supplements the annotations without contradiction.

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?

Three concise sentences deliver all necessary information: purpose, scope, and access control. No redundant words, each sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no required inputs, output schema present), the description fully covers the essential context. It does not need to explain the output schema as it is provided separately.

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?

The single parameter 'response_format' is fully defined in the schema with an enum and default. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the parameter is simple and self-explanatory. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool deletes entries from a local SQLite GAQL-response cache, specifying it's a cache-clearing operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like google_ads_cache_status by focusing on deletion rather than status checking.

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 when to use the tool (e.g., clearing local cache) and importantly states it does not affect Google Ads, nor requires mutation gates or credentials. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the context is clear for this simple utility.

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