create_table

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: default to PAY_PER_REQUEST billing, asynchronous nature implied by 'monitor until ACTIVE,' and the return shape. It does not explicitly mention provisioning behavior or failure states, but it goes beyond annotations meaningfully.

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 compact and well-organized with clear headings: purpose, when to use, when not to use, and returns. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 creation tool with output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: create, check existing tables, monitor with describe_table, and know what to expect in the response. It omits edge cases like provisioned capacity requirements or key type specifics, but those are covered by the input schema, so the overall picture is complete enough.

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 schema already provides rich descriptions for all parameters (table_name, partition_key, sort_key, billing_mode, capacity units, key types, tags). The description adds the key default (PAY_PER_REQUEST) and clarifies that sort key is optional, but does not compensate for the undocumented parts of the schema wrapper. This is adequate but not exemplary.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource phrase: 'Create a new DynamoDB table.' It further defines scope (partition key, optional sort key, default billing mode), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_tables, describe_table, and create_gsi.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections provide clear guidance. It names alternatives (list_tables, describe_table) for checking pre-existing tables and for monitoring progress to ACTIVE status, which is exactly the kind of decision support an agent needs.

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