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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond those flags: enabling enforcement will disconnect non-TLS clients, a concrete operational consequence an agent needs before calling.

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 tight sentences, purpose first and the risk warning second, with no filler. Every sentence earns 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 destructive, 9-parameter mutation with no output schema and 0% parameter descriptions, the definition is thin. It conveys purpose and one consequence but omits what approval_id and the beon_* context parameters require, leaving the agent under-informed before a destructive change.

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, so the description must carry the burden, yet it only implies the 'enforce' toggle. The required project_ref and the approval_id/beon_* parameters are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ('Change') plus resource ('database SSL enforcement'), which is enough to separate it from the sibling supabase_get_ssl_enforcement. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as supabase_get_ssl_enforcement or the related network-restriction tools. The warning about disconnecting non-TLS clients hints at caution but does not tell the agent when this action is warranted.

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