cdn_purge_cdn_zone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the operation as a purge (which implies destructiveness) but does not warn about irreversibility, scope (all edge nodes), potential rate limits, or any side effects. It also does not clarify what 'Purge operation details' means in terms of response structure, leaving the agent without critical safety information for a destructive action.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It uses a clear structure with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, making it easy for an agent to parse. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool, the description is fairly complete, but it omits key context such as whether the purge is reversible, if there are any delays or propagation times, and it only vaguely describes the return value as 'Purge operation details.' Given the destructive nature, more explicit warnings and response format expectations would improve completeness.

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 schema only specifies a string type for zone_identifier with zero coverage, but the description adds substantial meaning by explaining that it can be an origin domain, CDN domain, or UUID. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail and gives the agent precise instructions on what values are acceptable.

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 ('Purge all cached content from a CDN zone') with a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like cdn_get_cdn_zone or cdn_create_cdn_zone, making its purpose immediately recognizable.

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 by stating the tool's function, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusion scenarios. Since it is the only purge tool among siblings, the context is implicit rather than explicit.

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