Purge LiteSpeed Cache

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds some context by specifying exactly what is destroyed (LiteSpeed Cache) and at what scope (the specified WordPress installation). It stops short of describing side effects such as cache regeneration impact or whether the purge is irreversible.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the parameter sourcing hint is relevant and compact.

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?

The tool is simple and mostly adequate for an agent to invoke: the action is clear and the software ID source is provided. However, the required username parameter is semantically unexplained ('username parameter' in the schema), and with no output schema the description does not clarify what the agent should expect in response.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance for the software parameter by explaining where to obtain the identifier (the id field from the installations endpoint), but the username parameter remains opaque in both schema and description.

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') with a clear resource ('LiteSpeed Cache') and target ('specified WordPress installation'). It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as hosting_showLiteSpeedCacheStatusV1 or hosting_clearWebsiteCacheV1.

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?

Use is implied: call this when you need to purge the LiteSpeed cache of a WordPress installation. It also gives a helpful prerequisite by pointing to GET /api/hosting/v1/wordpress/installations for the software ID, but it does not state when to choose this tool over alternative cache-related tools or provide exclusions.

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