modx_flush_permissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that permissions are cached and that ACL mutations normally invalidate that cache, which explains the tool's effect. It does not state scope (all users/contexts vs. a subset), whether the operation is safe to repeat, or what a caller observes on success, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and parenthetical UI mapping, followed by the redundancy warning. No filler or repetition.

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 no-param, no-output-schema tool this covers purpose, cause, and the redundancy condition, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is scope and the shape of the success response, which matters slightly more given the absence of annotations.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the flush is global rather than targeted, consistent with the empty 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Flush cached access permissions') and anchors it to the manager UI label 'Flush Permissions', making the intent unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from ACL-write siblings such as modx_grant_resourcegroup_access because it describes a cache operation rather than a permission mutation.

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?

Explicitly says ACL write tools already flush automatically and that this tool is for a manual flush, so the agent knows both when to call it and when calling it is redundant. This is the key routing decision for a zero-argument utility tool and it is stated without inference.

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