cdn_refresh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the mutating behavior and a validation constraint, but it does not disclose that the operation is likely asynchronous, that it invalidates/purges cached content, or that it may have quotas/costs. The '预热' (preheat) wording is also inconsistent with the schema's type enum, which only describes refresh behavior.

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 well-structured sentence with the core action front-loaded and conditionals following. Every clause contributes useful information, and there is no filler or redundant explanation. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool.

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 correct input construction, the description is mostly complete: required parameters, type semantics, and path validation are covered. However, since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return behavior (e.g., task ID) and note that progress can be checked via cdn_task_status. These gaps leave the agent without full end-to-end context.

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%, so the parameter semantics baseline is 3. The description largely repeats what the schema already says about type and urls, adding no new meaning beyond restating the trailing-slash rule already present in the schema. It neither harms nor significantly improves parameter understanding.

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 identifies the resource (Tencent Cloud CDN cache) and the action (refresh or preheat), and it breaks down behavior by type=url vs type=path. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like cdn_task_status, but the action is distinct enough to be understood. The mention of '预热' (preheat) is not reflected in the enum, which prevents a perfect score.

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 gives explicit conditional guidance on when to use type=url vs type=path, including the trailing-slash validation rule for paths. This is clear context for invoking the tool. However, it does not mention the natural alternative/follow-up cdn_task_status for checking the refresh task result, so exclusion guidance is missing.

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