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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that with 'Can affect active database clients,' but does not say how (dropped connections? restart? downtime?) or what permissions/approval are 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 short sentences with the operation stated first and the risk caveat second; nothing is padded. The extreme terseness costs some completeness but the structure is well front-loaded.

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 10-parameter, destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and no annotation-independent param docs, this is thin. The approval_id parameter strongly implies an approval workflow that the description never acknowledges, leaving the agent without the context needed to call it correctly.

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, so the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it. It hints at pool size and pool mode but never explains the transaction/session enum semantics, the 1-3000 size bounds, or the roles of approval_id and the beon_* parameters.

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 ('Change pool size or pooling mode'), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not, however, name the read counterpart supabase_get_pooler_config, so the sibling differentiation is left to the agent.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: it never says to inspect current config via supabase_get_pooler_config first, nor does it state prerequisites such as the approval_id workflow. Usage is only weakly implied by 'Change'.

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