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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotated context: the request must be approved in BEON PASS before execution. It still omits whether omitted config fields are reset or preserved, which matters for a destructive non-idempotent nested-object update.

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 sentences, zero filler; the operational scope is front-loaded and the approval prerequisite follows immediately. Nothing redundant or padding.

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 a nested config object, 9 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It never explains the approval/beon parameter family an agent must supply, nor the reset-on-omit behavior an agent needs to call this 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 9 parameters, well under the 50% threshold. The description loosely gestures at the config contents (schemas, row limits, pool) but leaves approval_id and the seven beon_* parameters entirely unexplained in both schema and prose, so it 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Configure') and enumerates the actual configurable surfaces: exposed schemas, row limits, and connection pool, which map directly onto the db_schema/db_extra_search_path, max_rows, and db_pool fields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like supabase_update_pooler_config or supabase_update_database_config, which also touch pool/database settings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus supabase_update_pooler_config, supabase_update_database_config, or the read-side supabase_get_rest_config. The only usage condition stated is the approval prerequisite, which is a gate rather than a selection heuristic.

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