Clears Flax Engine build caches by running FlaxEditor with -clearcache, and optionally -clearcooker, to resolve stale or invalid cached build data.
Runs FlaxEditor.exe -clearcache, and optionally -clearcooker too, to clear build caches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alsoClearCooker | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| errors | Yes | ||
| exitCode | Yes | ||
| timedOut | Yes | ||
| succeeded | Yes | ||
| errorCount | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description usefully discloses the underlying command line flags being invoked, which is real behavioral context beyond the single readOnlyHint=false annotation. However it omits important traits: whether an editor instance is launched/blocked, whether clearing caches forces a full rebuild, and how long it takes.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the primary action and the optional variant are both stated compactly.
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 process-spawning mutation tool, the definition is thin: it doesn't say whether the editor must be closed, what gets deleted, or expected duration, though the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns.
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 coverage is 0% and the sole parameter alsoClearCooker has no schema description. The prose 'optionally -clearcooker too' does map the parameter to its effect, partially compensating, but it adds no detail on cost or consequences of clearing the cooker cache.
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 action and mechanism: runs FlaxEditor.exe with -clearcache and optionally -clearcooker to clear build caches. An agent can tell this is a cache-clearing operation distinct from build_compile_scripts or build_generate_projects, though the description does not explicitly name those siblings.
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 phrase 'to clear build caches' hints at intent but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives among the many build_* siblings. The agent must infer that this is for stale-cache recovery situations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.