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. The description adds the genuinely useful 'Permanently' qualifier and the fact that Management OAuth verifies project access, but the 'enter the Storage project key privately' clause is confusing since no such parameter exists. Some added context, with a muddled auth instruction.

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?

The first sentence is tight and front-loaded with the destructive action. The second sentence is vague, refers to a nonexistent 'Storage project key', and does not clearly earn 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 10-parameter, destructive, non-idempotent operation with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. It omits any explanation of the required identifiers, batch-size limits, or the consequences of partial failure, leaving the agent under-equipped to call it correctly.

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 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. It says nothing about project_ref, bucket_id, paths (the three required fields), the 100-item path limit, or the beon_* infrastructure parameters. Only the loose 'bucket'/'objects' wording hints at bucket_id and paths.

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: 'Permanently delete selected objects from a bucket.' The word 'objects' plus 'bucket' distinguishes it from the sibling supabase_delete_storage_bucket, though that distinction is left implicit rather than named. The second sentence muddies rather than sharpens the purpose.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named (e.g., supabase_delete_storage_bucket for the whole bucket, or supabase_move_storage_object instead of deleting). The only contextual sentence concerns OAuth and a 'Storage project key', which is not a parameter of this tool and reads as an instruction the agent cannot act on.

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