delete_context_cache

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., side effects, irreversibility, or consequences of deleting in-use caches). With annotations covering the basic safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate because the description does not enhance transparency beyond what is already structured.

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from mentioning idempotency or return behavior. Still, it avoids unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what happens on successful deletion (e.g., returns nothing or a confirmation) or any error conditions. The output schema exists but the description doesn't leverage it to set expectations.

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%, and the schema itself provides a clear meaning for cache_name ('Cache name to delete (from create_context_cache)'). The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 'Delete' and the resource 'Gemini context cache'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it's easily distinguishable from sibling tools like create_context_cache, get_batch, etc.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to delete a cache versus leaving it or using another deletion tool. The description does not mention any prerequisites or conditions.

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