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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful extra that execution is gated on an explicit BEON PASS approval, context annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing aftermath (e.g., irreversibility, dependent routes/URLs going dead).

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 sentences, no filler. The operation is stated first and the approval constraint second, which is the correct front-loading for an agent deciding whether it can call this.

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 operation with no output schema and 9 undocumented parameters, the description covers the basic action and the approval gate but omits what the caller needs to supply and what state change to expect. Annotations carry the destructive warning, keeping this at a minimum-viable level rather than inadequate.

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 9 parameters, and the description names none of them. The agent gets no help on slug vs project_ref semantics or on the BEON approval/context fields that accompany the request, so the description fails to compensate 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: 'Delete a deployed Edge Function.' The agent can distinguish this from supabase_deploy_edge_function and supabase_delete_function_secret by name alone. However, the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It supplies a real prerequisite — user approval of the exact request in BEON PASS before execution — which tells the agent when the call can actually fire. It does not say when to prefer this over alternatives or what conditions make deletion appropriate, so usage is only implied.

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