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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description earns credit for naming the concrete blast radius ('lock out clients'), which is context the annotations do not convey. It still omits whether add and remove can be combined, whether the change is reversible, and what auth/approval is required.

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 with the operation stated first and the risk second, zero filler. It is appropriately front-loaded, though arguably too terse for a 10-parameter destructive tool.

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?

A destructive, non-idempotent mutation with nested objects, 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema needs substantially more explanation than two sentences. The agent cannot determine the semantics of add/remove, the approval flow, or the project_ref constraint from the description alone.

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, including two nested add/remove objects and several beon_* coordination fields, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions CIDRs and the allowlist but gives no meaning for the add vs remove structure, approval_id, project_ref format, or the beon_* fields. This leaves most parameters semantically undocumented.

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 pair and resource: 'Add or remove CIDRs from the database allowlist.' An agent can tell this mutates the allowlist rather than reading it, distinguishing it from supabase_get_network_restrictions and supabase_list_network_bans. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the read-only siblings, no prerequisites, and no note that approval_id may be required for the change to take effect. 'Can expose the database or lock out clients' is a consequence warning, not usage guidance.

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