clear_field_cache

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the direct action ('Clear the cached form-field definitions') and mentions scope via the parameter, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., performance impact on next request), reversibility, or any caveats. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies cache state.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is efficiently structured, though it is formatted as a docstring rather than prose. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description gives the core purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, which are important given the absence of annotations. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 schema provides only parameter names and default, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining the parameter's meaning ('Specific entity to clear'), providing examples ('ticket', 'change'), and clarifying the omission behavior ('or omit to clear all'). This adds valuable meaning beyond the schema.

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's action ('Clear the cached form-field definitions') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like discover_form_fields by focusing on cache invalidation rather than discovery, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context such as prerequisites or typical invalidation scenarios. It only explains the parameter behavior, not usage context.

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