cache_manage

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of removing or clearing cached data is consistent and adds specificity. It does not detail potential side effects (e.g., irreversible data removal), but the annotations cover the destructive nature, and the description provides operational clarity.

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 very concise: a single sentence followed by a clear list of parameters. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are not needed in the description. The description covers both parameters, their roles, and the two actions. For a cache management tool, this is complete and leaves no critical gaps.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates: it explains that 'action' accepts 'remove' or 'clear', and that 'resource_id' is required for 'remove' and accepts prefixed or bare IDs. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states it manages the DuckDB cache with two specific actions: 'remove' (single resource) and 'clear' (all). The verb 'manage' combined with explicit actions leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cache_info or refresh_cache.

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 explains when to use each action: 'remove' for a single resource (requiring resource_id) and 'clear' for all cached data. While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., refresh_cache), the self-contained guidance is sufficient for correct invocation within the tool.

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