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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: potential provider charges, private password handling via BEON PASS, and mandatory user approval before execution. It still does not cover rate limits, response behavior, or failure modes.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses four short sentences without unnecessary filler. Each sentence adds relevant operational information, though the repeated BEON PASS references are slightly redundant.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description gives useful operational constraints but leaves the parameter set almost entirely undocumented. An agent cannot determine how to populate approval_id, beon_* fields, or even the required region/name semantics from the description alone.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the schema provides no semantic meaning for any parameter. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameter, including required fields like organization_slug, name, region, or the approval/context parameters.

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?

States a clear verb (Create) and resource (Supabase project), so an agent can identify the basic operation. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as supabase_create_branch, railway_create_project, or vercel_create_project beyond the implied provider name.

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 implies the tool is used to create a new project and states prerequisites: the user must approve the exact request and provide a password privately in BEON PASS. It does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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