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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful billing note ('Provider charges may resume') beyond the structured hints, but omits other behavior such as prerequisites, duration, or what happens to project state.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the cost caveat; no redundancy. It is efficient, though its extreme terseness borders on under-specification rather than tight conciseness.

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, non-idempotent mutation with 8 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It fails to explain the required project_ref, expected effects, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent to act on safely.

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 8 parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The required project_ref (and the internal beon_* orchestration fields) are left entirely to the schema patterns/enums, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Restore a paused project'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling supabase_pause_project and the data-restore tools (restore_backup/restore_pitr). However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

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 like supabase_restore_backup or supabase_restore_pitr, nor any stated preconditions (e.g., the project must already be paused). The only usage-adjacent content is a cost warning, which is not routing guidance.

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