load_ddl_schema

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds the UTF-8 file constraint and inline source. However, it does not disclose whether loading appends, replaces, or merges with the target diagram, nor does it explain the dialect parameter's effect.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The key verb and resource are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and immediately understand the core operation.

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 4 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits the role of diagram, how dialect affects parsing, and the overall effect on the target diagram, leaving important usage details ambiguous.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implicitly covers ddl and path via 'inline or from a UTF-8 file', but leaves the required diagram parameter and dialect parameter unexplained, relying on the schema alone for their meaning.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function: loading CREATE TABLE statements from inline text (ddl) or a UTF-8 file (path). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like load_database_schema and load_spec_schema by naming DDL-specific input and source options.

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 given on when to use this tool over alternatives such as load_database_schema or load_spec_schema. The description only states what the tool does, not in which scenario it should be selected, and provides no exclusions.

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