stellar_cache_clean

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the destruction scope (transaction history and contract specs), which is the single most important trait for a destructive tool. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, whether the cache is repopulated automatically, required permissions, or confirmation requirements.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately qualified by the exact data affected. No filler or 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 destructive, zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is lost but omits reversibility, whether data can be regenerated, and any confirmation behavior. It is minimally sufficient but leaves real gaps around the risk profile.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 (delete) and resource (cache) and goes further by naming exactly what is removed: transaction history and contract specs. This distinguishes it from cache-read siblings like stellar_cache_actionlog_list and stellar_cache_path, though there is no other destructive cache sibling to contrast with explicitly.

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 on when to run this versus other cache or config tools, and no warning about prerequisites or when it should be avoided. The agent is left to infer that this is a cleanup/reset operation.

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