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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: files are sent to Supabase and never executed by BEON PASS (sandbox behavior), the 20-file/5 MB source cap, and the approval gate. It stops short of saying what happens when a slug already exists or whether redeployment overwrites.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then the sandbox/approval caveats. No filler, though the size-limit sentence and the approval sentence could be tightened slightly.

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 12-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotation coverage of parameters, the description covers purpose, limits, sandboxing, and approval but leaves the majority of the input surface unexplained. An agent would still need to guess at project_ref format, verify_jwt semantics, and the beon_* fields.

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 12 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only touches the files parameter indirectly ('up to 20 files and 5 MB total UTF-8 source'), leaving project_ref, slug, entrypoint, verify_jwt, approval_id, and the beon_* context parameters entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 (Deploy), resource (TypeScript Edge Function), and mechanism (Supabase server-side bundling). This clearly separates it from siblings like supabase_list_edge_functions and supabase_delete_edge_function without needing to open any schema.

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 strong prerequisite (user must approve the exact request in BEON PASS before execution) and surfaces size limits, but never states when to choose this over alternatives or what preconditions must already exist. Usage is implied by the deployment verb rather than guided explicitly.

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