bricks_purge_cache

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It explicitly states what caches are purged and that page targeting is optional. While it doesn't detail side effects or return values, the behavior is straightforward and clearly communicated for this type of mutation tool.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence comprehensively lists what is purged, the second adds the optional target. Perfectly front-loaded.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple cache purge tool. However, it lacks mention of return values or confirmation of success, which would be helpful for an agent. No output schema exists, so the description carries this burden.

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% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The tool description merely echoes the schema's info ('Optionally target a specific page'), adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'Purge' and the resource 'all caches', listing specific cache types (Bricks CSS, WP object cache, BAB transients, active cache plugins). This distinguishes it from all other bricks tools, none of which are cache-related.

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 implies usage for clearing caches but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The optional page targeting gives some context but no exclusions.

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