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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond that by warning 'Existing links may break' and describing the management OAuth access verification and private project-key entry, which are consequences and prerequisites not encoded in annotations.

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 and its consequence, with no filler. The auth sentence is dense but earns its place for a destructive operation.

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 with 11 params and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral risks but omits error/collision behavior, return expectations, and the meaning of the required path parameters. 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?

With 11 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate and does not. It never clarifies source_path vs destination_path semantics, the project_ref format, or what the beon_* plumbing parameters are, leaving most of the schema unilluminated.

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 (move or rename) and resource (an object within the selected bucket), which is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like supabase_upload_storage_object or supabase_delete_storage_objects. It does not explicitly name a neighboring operation to route against, so it falls short of a 5.

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 operation type strongly implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison to alternatives such as delete/upload. The only contextual instructions are about auth handling, not tool selection.

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