invalidate_cache

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core action (invalidating the cached graph) but does not elaborate on side effects, what 'invalidate' means precisely (e.g., clearing vs. marking stale), or any persistence implications. For a simple cache invalidation tool, this 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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Invalidate the cached graph') and includes a usage hint. There is no wasted wording.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and when to use it. It could mention what happens after invalidation, but for this complexity level, it is sufficiently complete.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter information.

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 uses a specific verb 'Invalidate' and specific resource 'cached graph', clearly stating its action. It stands out from sibling tools like graph_metadata or analyze because no other tool mentions invalidation.

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 explicitly says 'Use after making code changes', providing a clear context for when to invoke. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is direct and unambiguous.

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