qobrix_cache_clear

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that without a prefix the entire cache (memory + Redis) is cleared, with a prefix only matching keys are cleared, the default TTL of 300s, and that the return value indicates cleared entries per tier. This is strong coverage, though it stops short of discussing the broader performance impact of clearing the whole cache.

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 three sentences that efficiently cover purpose, trigger condition, mode behavior, examples, and return value. There is no filler; every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 tool with a single optional parameter, the description is fully self-sufficient. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, how to use it in both modes, with examples, and what it returns. No output schema is needed because the return behavior is described.

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 already documents the optional 'prefix' parameter with full coverage. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing real-world examples (e.g., 'v1:request:opportunities' for lead lists) and clarifying the behavior difference between including and omitting the prefix.

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 'Invalidate cached Qobrix responses' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which are read/search/analysis operations, by focusing on cache invalidation.

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 says when to use this tool: 'when CRM data was edited in Qobrix and you need fresh reads before the TTL expires.' It also gives concrete examples for prefix usage. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools like qobrix_cache_stats.

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