Clear Cache

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It adds that the operation returns an operation_id, hinting at asynchronous behavior, but it does not explain that the result is tracked via an operations endpoint or discuss side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 one focused, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, scope, and return value with no wasted words. Every part 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the required environment_id and the returned operation_id. It could additionally mention that the returned operation_id should be polled via kinsta_operations_status, but that gap is minor given the low complexity.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter, environment_id, so the schema already explains the parameter fully. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Clear') with a clear resource ('server cache') and scope ('for an environment'). The qualifier 'server' distinguishes it from sibling tools like kinsta_edge-cache_clear and kinsta_cdn_clear-cache. It also tells the caller what to expect ('Returns an operation_id').

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 provides clear context: this is the tool for clearing the server-level cache of a specific environment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'server cache' wording sharply narrows the use case relative to sibling cache tools.

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