jp_lit_delete_cache

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states destructive nature, deletion granularity, irreversibility, and that session history is not deleted.

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?

Description is moderately concise, front-loaded with 'delete/destructive', and efficiently explains functionality and alternatives without unnecessary words.

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 complexity of a destructive operation and lack of annotations, description covers purpose, alternatives, safety warnings, and behavioral details. However, missing output schema details could add value.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters (empty object), but description mentions parameters cache_key and clear_all=true that are not present in the schema. This creates confusion about how to invoke the tool.

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?

Description clearly states it deletes locally saved cache by cache_key or tool-level with clear_all=true. It distinguishes from sibling tools jp_lit_list_cache and jp_lit_prune_cache by referencing them as alternatives for safe inspection.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use alternatives: jp_lit_list_cache for confirmation before deletion, jp_lit_prune_cache with dry_run=true for safe inspection. Also warns that deletion is irreversible.

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