ddb_design_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it falls short. 'Design' leaves open whether this tool mutates infrastructure, performs a dry-run, requires AWS credentials, or has side effects. The api_key parameter implies an authenticated operation, but the description never acknowledges auth requirements or side effects.

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?

A single, efficient 14-word sentence that front-loads the resource and the three design dimensions. There is zero redundancy and every word carries meaning.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vaguely action-oriented verb, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not clarify the tool's output format, whether it applies to existing tables, how billing_mode interacts with capacity provisioning, or what the api_key is used for. An agent cannot confidently predict the result of invoking this tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description loosely maps to parameters via 'partition key, sort key, and capacity settings' (capacity settings corresponding to billing_mode), but it adds no meaning beyond what the schema already documents — no format constraints, dependencies between billing_mode and capacity values, or conventions for key naming.

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 states a specific resource ('DynamoDB table schema') and the key design dimensions (partition key, sort key, capacity settings). It distinguishes intent from siblings like ddb_generate_gsi and ddb_optimize_queries, which target different aspects. However, the verb 'design' is slightly vague about the deliverable — a schema document vs. actual table creation.

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. The sibling list contains closely related DynamoDB tools (ddb_generate_gsi, ddb_optimize_queries) and the description offers no routing, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose correctly.

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