PCM

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a destructive action ('Clear') and the purpose, but lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., temporary performance impact), or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the action and purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, with no wasted words.

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?

Given a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and usage hint but lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or error cases. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps for a tool that performs a cache-clearing operation.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add param info, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary complexity.

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 ('Clear') and target resource ('exchange instance cache') with a purpose ('to apply configuration changes'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'clear-cache' by specifying 'exchange instance' scope, though not explicitly contrasting them. The purpose is specific but could be more detailed about what 'exchange instance' entails.

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 implies usage context ('to apply configuration changes'), suggesting this tool should be used after configuration updates. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'clear-cache' or provide exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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