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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutating/external nature is covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful consequence 'Changes production authentication trust', which tells the agent this affects live auth, but says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects on existing providers.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the impact warning front-loaded alongside the purpose. Efficient, though arguably under-specified given a 10-parameter destructive 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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent tool with 10 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits parameter guidance, required-field behavior, and any detail on what the production-auth change actually entails.

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, and the description mentions none of them - not the required metadata_url, domains, or project_ref, nor the undocumented beon_* control parameters. There is only an implicit hint that SAML involvement implies a metadata URL, which is far short of compensating for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb-and-resource ('Configure a SAML identity provider'), which an agent can immediately map to the create-SSO-provider action. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling supabase_update_sso_provider or supabase_delete_sso_provider, and 'Configure' is slightly ambiguous for a create operation.

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 on when to use this versus supabase_update_sso_provider, supabase_get_sso_provider, or supabase_list_sso_providers, and no prerequisites or ordering hints. The only context is the impact warning, which is not usage guidance.

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