invalidate_cache

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the most important behavioral trait: if neither cache_key nor source is provided, it invalidates ALL cached results. It also explains the return value (JSON with count). It stops short of detailing permissions or rebuild implications, but the core destructive scope is well flagged.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, an Args section, and a Returns line. There is no filler or repetition of the schema, and every sentence adds 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and the existing output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: args, default behavior, and return format. It could optionally mention that invalidation is irreversible or that caches may be automatically rebuilt, but such details are not strictly necessary. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use safely.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining exactly what cache_key and source do, the allowed values for source ('bag' or 'catalog'), and the combined behavior when neither is provided. This is precisely the semantics an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 starts with the clear verb 'Invalidate' and the specific resource 'cached tabular query results'. This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cached_results and query_cached_result, which read rather than invalidate.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and resource, and the args section explains the three modes (specific key, source, or all). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., list_cached_results) or when not to use it.

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