peaka_refresh_cache_full

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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only and not destructive. The description adds workflow context (required prior calls) but does not disclose whether the refresh is asynchronous, how long it may take, or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short paragraphs. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides workflow instructions. No unnecessary words, efficient and 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the agent can expect as a return value (e.g., status, success/failure). It does not. Parameter documentation is decent, but the lack of result description leaves a gap for an action-oriented tool.

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 description coverage is 100%. The description adds context for cacheId (source endpoint) but simply restates the schema for projectId. Since the schema already covers parameters well, the description provides only marginal value 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Trigger a full refresh') and the resource ('existing cache in the Peaka project'), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'peaka_refresh_cache_incremental' by specifying 'full refresh'.

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 provides explicit guidance: request the cacheId from 'peaka_get_cache_statuses', and if projectId is unknown, call 'peaka_list_projects' first. It implies the context for use (full refresh) but doesn't compare with the incremental alternative, which is a minor gap.

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