purga_cache_sito

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the actual effect (site cache invalidation) and that this duplicates behavior baked into other write tools, which is meaningful context. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether the purge is global or partial, expected latency/impact, or what the call returns.

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 action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the parenthetical plus the second sentence each add distinct value (redundancy with write tools; the symptom that motivates manual use). Slightly verbose phrasing but nothing extraneous.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema utility tool with no annotations, the description covers what it does, why it exists, and when to reach for it. The remaining gap is feedback behavior — whether success/failure is reported — but the essentials an agent needs to select and call it are present.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed by describing an unconditional manual purge.

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 and resource ('Invalida manualmente la cache del sito') and clarifies its relationship to the write tools that invoke the same procedure automatically. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't differentiate itself from any named sibling beyond the implicit 'the others are automatic'.

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?

Gives an explicit use condition: use it when something was modified outside these tools and the frontend still serves stale content. It also signals the inverse case by noting the write tools already purge automatically, implying it's redundant after normal write operations. No alternative tool is named, which keeps it short of a 5.

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