Invalidate Hex-Rays decompile cache

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

No annotations, so the description carries the bundle and does well: it discloses that this is a state-invalidating side effect whose observable result appears on the subsequent `decompile`. It omits cost/performance implications of a full-cache regeneration and any concurrency or permission notes, which would be the remaining gap for an unannotated mutation-style tool.

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 tight sentences: the action first, then the trigger conditions and rationale. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers what the tool does, when to call it, and why. Everything needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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 both `items` (including the omit-to-recompile-everything default) and `instance_id` are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the 'one or more functions' scope without adding format or semantic detail, so baseline 3 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?

Specific verb (Invalidate) plus precise resource (Hex-Rays decompile cache) plus scope (one or more functions). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like decompile, which reads the cache rather than invalidating it.

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 names the precondition tools (`set_type`, `rename`, `set_op_type`, `make_data`) that require this call and explains the payoff: the next `decompile` returns fresh rather than stale pseudocode. This is the when-to-use guidance an agent needs, with a named downstream tool.

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