clear_server_cache

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context such as what specifically gets flushed, whether it affects running tasks, or how the operation is scoped. It only repeats the HTTP endpoint.

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 very short, but the second sentence 'DELETE /cache.' is redundant with the tool name and annotations and does not clarify scope. It is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently front-loaded.

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 destructive cache-clearing operation in a family of similar cache tools, the description does not explain what 'server cache' means operationally or how it differs from project or runner caches. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the scope ambiguity remains a significant gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to document, and the schema is fully explicit about the empty input.

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 'clear Cache. DELETE /cache.' largely restates the tool name rather than specifying what cache is cleared. It does not distinguish this server-level cache clearing from sibling tools like clear_project_cache, clear_global_runner_cache, or clear_project_runner_cache.

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?

There is no guidance on when this tool should be used, what prerequisites exist, or which sibling cache-clearing alternative is appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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