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

The description hints at a destructive action (merging to production) but annotations are minimal (destructiveHint: false) and don't fully cover the risk. It adds some context about bulk support, but doesn't disclose side effects like potential conflicts or irreversible changes, especially for production.

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?

The description is concise, two sentences, and front-loads the core purpose. The bulk support note is extra but valuable, so no wasted content. It could be more structured but is efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (merging branches to production) and lack of output schema, the description provides basic context but not enough to fully understand implications, such as what happens on conflict or if there are any confirmation steps. It's adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain the parameters, but it only mentions branch_ids for bulk support without detailing what branch_id represents or how they are used. It doesn't differentiate between the two parameters or clarify if branch_id is required versus optional.

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 clearly identifies the action (merges) and the resource (migrations and edge functions) from a development branch to production. It distinguishes it from sibling tools like supabase_rebase_branch, which has a different operation, and mentions bulk support for batch execution.

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?

The description implies usage in the context of promoting changes from development to production, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others like supabase_apply_migration or supabase_deploy_edge_function. There's no mention of prerequisites or scenarios to avoid.

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