clear_project_runner_cache

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying DELETE route, confirming the mutation scope is limited to a single runner's cache, but says nothing about what breaks (e.g., in-flight jobs or re-download requirements) or permission needs.

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, action first, endpoint second — no filler. It is appropriately sized for what little it chooses to convey.

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?

A destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool whose description gives no explanation of consequences, expected state after clearing, or failure modes. With 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves too much to inference.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented integer params. The path template shows both project_id and runner_id are scoping identifiers in the URL, but provides no format, range, or lookup guidance beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb (Clear) and resource (project runner cache), which is unambiguous against most siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like clear_global_runner_cache or clear_project_cache, though the name and scoping imply the difference.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus clear_project_cache or clear_global_runner_cache, nor any prerequisites or after-effects that would trigger it. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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