Toggle Memcached object cache

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

Annotations already convey that the operation is non-read-only, idempotent, and destructive. The description aligns with those annotations and clarifies that the enabled flag drives activation versus deactivation, but it adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, cache flushing, or prerequisites beyond identifying the installation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and condition, and the second provides the critical lookup path for the required identifier. Every sentence earns its place.

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 three-parameter toggle, the description covers the action, the controlling flag, and where to find the main identifier. It does not describe the expected response or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the idempotent/destructive annotations, this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 describes all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value for the software parameter by pointing to the exact GET endpoint and field from which its value can be obtained. However, the username parameter remains only described as 'username parameter', adding no real semantic depth.

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 states a specific action (activate or deactivate) on a specific resource (Memcached object cache for a WordPress installation), controlled by the enabled flag. This clearly distinguishes it from status-only tools like hosting_showMemcachedObjectCacheStatusV1 and other cache toggles.

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 gives useful guidance on how to obtain the software identifier via the installations endpoint and where to provide it. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as checking the current cache status first, or choosing between Memcached, cacheless mode, or website cache toggling.

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