Reset cached path to a contact

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the effect (clears cache, next send re-discovers route) and the consequence (no direct sends affected until next one). This adds value beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states action, second explains consequence, third gives usage scenario. Perfectly concise and structured.

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 parameter, idempotent, non-destructive) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what, how, when, and why. No gaps.

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?

With schema coverage at 100%, the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. The schema already explains 'contact name or hex public-key prefix', so the baseline of 3 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 clears a local cached path, with specific verb 'clear the local cached forwarding path'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like `set_contact_path` or `trace_path`, though the action is unique enough.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when a known path has gone stale, direct sends are failing or slower. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the usage scenario is well-explained.

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