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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral detail beyond them: execution is gated on the user approving the exact request in BEON PASS. It still does not state reversibility or whether dependent functions are affected, keeping it short of a 5.

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 with the action front-loaded and the approval prerequisite second. No filler, nothing repeated from the annotations.

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 mutation the annotations cover safety and the description adds the approval gate, but with 9 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, key inputs like project_ref and approval_id remain unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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, so the description must carry the load. It only clarifies the "name" selector; required project_ref and the six BEON context/approval parameters (approval_id, beon_app_id, beon_resume_id, etc.) are left entirely undocumented. It does not 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 an Edge Function secret") with the selector ("by name"), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from supabase_delete_edge_function or supabase_set_function_secret without opening a schema. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling that creates/updates secrets, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 gives a precondition (BEON PASS approval) but no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. Usage is only implied by the verb, so this is minimum viable.

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