Flush the page cache

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

The description goes well beyond the idempotentHint=false annotation by disclosing that nothing is lost, every page must be re-rendered, busy instances slow down, and a confirmation token is required. This gives an agent a realistic picture of side effects, safety, and workflow.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the core action, then add consequences and the confirmation requirement. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary restatement of the title.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the action, scope, side effects, safety profile, and confirmation requirement. The token mechanics are already documented in the parameter schema, and no output schema is needed for an agent to call this correctly.

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 only parameter, confirm_token, is fully described in the schema ('Token from this tool’s previous, unconfirmed call. Omit it to receive one.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description only repeats that a token is required and adds no new format or workflow detail beyond the schema.

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 concrete action: 'Drops Wiki.js’ rendered-page cache for the whole wiki.' It specifies the resource (rendered-page cache) and scope (whole wiki), which distinguishes it from sibling rebuild/purge tools like rebuild_search_index or purge_page_history.

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 operational context is clear: pages are re-rendered on first access and a busy instance gets slower. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rebuild_page_tree or rebuild_search_index, so the usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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