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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a concrete impact disclosure ('Affected users may lose access') that goes beyond the annotations, which is valuable. It still lacks details about permanence or required permissions.

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 zero waste: the action is front-loaded and the impact warning follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits usage guidance, parameter meanings, and prerequisites, leaving an agent unable to invoke it confidently beyond inferring from parameter names.

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 provides no explanation of any parameter. It does not mention project_ref, provider_id, or the beon_* parameters, so it fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('SAML identity provider'), making the action clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling deletion tools like supabase_delete_domain or supabase_delete_branch, nor from supabase_update_sso_provider, leaving sibling discrimination to the tool name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as supabase_update_sso_provider or supabase_get_sso_provider. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are stated; only the consequence is mentioned.

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