technitium_flush_cache

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does surface two important traits — the operation wipes the entire cache and human confirmation is required — but omits permission/auth requirements, reversibility/impact on in-flight resolution, and any server-side side effects.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the action, followed by the confirmation requirement and the parameter note. The trailing 'server:' fragment is slightly terse/awkward but still earns its place by documenting a 0%-coverage parameter.

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 two-parameter, single-action tool with an output schema available, the description covers the destructive scope, the confirmation workflow, and both parameters. The missing piece is any note about permissions or impact severity, which would matter for an unannotated destructive operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does document both parameters: 'server' is the one-name selector when multiple servers exist, and 'confirm' must be true after user approval. It does not clarify the expected server name format or where to obtain valid names, so it stops short of a 5.

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 precise verb and resource ('Clear the whole DNS cache') and even scopes it ('whole'), which unambiguously separates it from siblings like technitium_resolve or technitium_stats. No sibling could be confused with it from the text alone.

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 gives a procedural precondition ('Ask the user first, then set confirm=true') but says nothing about when this tool should be chosen over alternatives such as resolve or per-record operations, nor when not to flush. Usage is implied rather than explained.

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