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

Beyond the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the empty-bucket precondition, the credential requirement, and the mandatory out-of-band approval step in BEON PASS. It does not spell out irreversibility or failure modes, but the added operational context is substantial.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and constraint, then prerequisites. No filler and every clause carries 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 destructive 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotation-covered parameter detail, the description covers the important behavioral gates but leaves the many beon_* parameters undocumented. Adequate for safety intent, incomplete for correct invocation.

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 only loosely gestures at project_ref ('private project credential') and approval_id ('BEON PASS approval'). The remaining parameters, especially the beon_* context, resume, release, and environment fields, are unexplained, leaving the agent without parameter-level guidance.

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 (delete) and resource (storage bucket) with the added constraint that the bucket must be empty. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling supabase_create_storage_bucket, supabase_update_storage_bucket, and supabase_delete_storage_objects.

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?

Gives clear preconditions (bucket must be empty, private project credential required, BEON PASS user approval required before execution) that tell the agent when this tool is invocable. It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as supabase_delete_storage_objects for emptying a non-empty bucket.

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