wafle_resources_invalidate

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context: substring matching behavior, flushing behavior, and the effect on subsequent reads. It also discloses the 'Master only' permission requirement, which is not present in annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence covers the core function and parameter semantics; the second covers usage context and permission. No waste 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 simple tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and helpful annotations, the description is fully complete. It explains the operation, the parameter's effect, when to use it, and a master-only constraint. No gaps remain for the agent to infer.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the parameter behavior ('Pass uri_pattern to drop matching entries (substring match), or omit to flush everything') but adds no new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. The 'Master only' note is tool-level, not parameter-level.

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: 'Invalidate the in-memory MCP resource cache,' with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the optional parameter behavior and distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on cache invalidation, which no other tool addresses.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use after a destructive write (mutating products, settings) if you want the next resources/read to fetch fresh data.' It also adds the 'Master only' restriction, providing clear context for invocation relative to alternatives.

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