simulation.free_cache

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

All annotations are false/empty, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only offers generic labels ('Risk: standard; maturity: L3') that apply to any tool. It does not disclose whether cache data is destroyed, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects occur; it does not contradict the annotations, so it is not scored 1.

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 short but both sentences are filler: the first repeats the title and the second is generic policy boilerplate applicable to any harness command. This is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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?

Despite an output schema and six parameters, the description is grossly incomplete: it fails to explain the operation, the meaning of the key parameters, when to invoke it, or how it relates to the simulation cache/simulation sibling tools. An agent cannot select or call this tool correctly from this text.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description adds zero parameter meaning. The functional parameters `name` and `objectId` have no schema or description documentation, yet the description never clarifies what they refer to in the context of freeing a cache, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid call.

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 only restates the command name ('PartMe Blender Harness command `simulation.free_cache`') and appends generic risk/maturity boilerplate. It never states what the tool actually does — 'free_cache' could mean clearing simulation data, releasing memory, or invalidating cached results — so the core verb+resource is entirely absent.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool is provided. It offers no conditions, no exclusions, and no reference to the obvious sibling blender_simulation_cache_status or the other simulation tools, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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