prune_table

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

The annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it requires confirm=true, explains that it scans and batch-deletes, warns that omitting filter_expression deletes ALL items permanently, and specifies that the table structure is preserved. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 appropriately structured: purpose first, then warnings, then clear usage bullets, and a return summary. Every sentence serves a purpose; the additional length is justified for a destructive operation and does not feel padded.

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?

The description is complete for a destructive tool: it states the operation, the safety requirement (confirm=true), what is preserved, what happens without a filter, when to use/avoid it, and what it returns. Combined with the annotations and output schema, the agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

While the reported schema coverage is 0%, the nested PruneTableInput schema actually describes all five parameters in detail. The description repeats the key semantics for confirm and filter_expression (e.g., 'Requires confirm=true' and 'If omitted, ALL items are deleted') but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema fields.

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 action and resource: 'Delete all items (or filtered items) from a DynamoDB table.' It clarifies the table itself is preserved, distinguishing it from deleting the table or deleting a single item. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like delete_item.

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?

The description provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, enumerating valid use cases like clearing a table or pruning by criteria, and explicitly pointing to delete_item as the alternative for single-item deletion. It also notes that deleting the table itself is unsupported.

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