clear_cache

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

The description does clearly disclose the destructive nature of the operation by specifying that cached files on disk are deleted, and it adds useful context by noting frame_range can limit deletion. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not mention whether the operation is reversible, what happens to the cache node itself, or how missing paths are handled.

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 primary behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the parameter explanations are compact and directly useful. The 'Args:' block is mostly efficient, though including the non-schema ctx argument adds slight noise.

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?

This is a simple destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, and the description covers the required node_path and the optional frame_range semantics. It is minimally viable, but it lacks any statement about return behavior, failed lookups, or whether deletion is permanent, which would make the tool safer for an agent to invoke.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining node_path as 'Path to the cache node' and explaining frame_range as a '[start, end] range that limits deletion. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema property names, though it also lists a ctx param that does not appear in the input schema, which is a minor distraction.

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 immediately states the operation: 'Delete cached files on disk for a cache node.' This is a specific verb plus resource that clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_caches, get_cache_status, and write_cache. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose clear_cache over related cache-management tools such as write_cache, list_caches, or get_cache_status. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'Delete' and the tool name. No explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned.

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