arvan_purge_cache

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral nuance: providing urls purges only those paths, while omitting urls purges the entire domain cache. This goes 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences front-load the purpose and immediately explain parameter usage. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple purge operation with 2 parameters, the description covers core usage and the two modes. It could mention that purging affects CDN cache, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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. It explains the role of both 'domain' (required) and 'urls' (optional, for specific purges). While it does not detail the exact format of urls, it provides essential semantic context.

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 a specific verb ('Purge') and a clear resource ('cached content for a domain'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'arvan_get_caching_settings' or 'arvan_update_caching_settings' by focusing on cache invalidation, which is a distinct operation.

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 explicitly states when to pass the 'urls' parameter (to purge specific paths) and when to omit it (to purge everything). This provides clear usage context, though it does not mention any alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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