peaka_delete_cache

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral nuance by stating the cache is removed entirely while the underlying table is unaffected. This clarifies the destructive scope beyond the bare annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then effects, then parameter sourcing, then prerequisite workflow. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is no filler.

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 two-required-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description provides complete operational context: how to obtain cacheId, how to resolve projectId, what happens to the cache, and what is unaffected. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 input schema covers both parameters at 100% with descriptions, so the baseline is already solid. The description goes further by explaining where cacheId comes from and prescribing the projectId discovery workflow, adding practical meaning beyond the schema fields.

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 starts with a clear verb-resource statement: 'Delete an existing cache in the Peaka project.' It also disambiguates scope by explicitly noting the underlying table is not affected, which separates this from other deletion tools like peaka_delete_query and peaka_delete_semantic_table.

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 description clearly instructs the agent to use the cacheId returned from peaka_get_cache_statuses and provides a workflow for resolving an unknown projectId via peaka_list_projects. It does not explicitly compare against sibling delete tools, but the context is sufficient for deciding when to invoke this tool.

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