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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: a project secret key entered privately, an OAuth-based project access check, and a human approval gate in BEON PASS before execution. It does not say whether the call fails or queues when approval is missing.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The auth and approval clauses are dense but each carries distinct information.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description covers the auth/approval flow but leaves the entire parameter surface unexplained, including required fields. An agent can understand the security model but not how to construct the request.

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 12 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions bucket_id, public, file_size_limit, allowed_mime_types, or any of the beon_* approval/context fields, leaving an agent with no guidance on what a well-formed call looks like.

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+resource ('Create a Storage bucket'), which is unambiguous against siblings like supabase_delete_storage_bucket or supabase_update_storage_bucket. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from those siblings, but the naming pattern makes the distinction obvious.

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 lists prerequisites (secret key, Management OAuth access check, BEON PASS approval) but never says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as supabase_list_storage_buckets or supabase_update_storage_bucket, nor warns about creating duplicates. It gives operational preconditions rather than selection guidance.

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