upload_to_supabase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one vague behavioral claim ('with security validation') but never explains what that validation entails, whether uploads can be rejected, whether existing files are overwritten, what permissions are needed, or what happens on success or failure. For a tool that writes to external storage with a service-role key, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single sentence with the verb and object front-loaded and the destination stated immediately after. There is zero redundancy and every phrase ('image or analysis results', 'security validation') contributes information beyond the tool name.

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 tool with 6 parameters (5 required, including a sensitive service-role key), no annotations, no output schema, and a write side-effect on external storage, a one-sentence description is inadequate. An agent lacks information about return values, failure modes, the meaning of 'security validation', and how this differs from sibling tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds the concept of 'analysis results' that is not reflected in the parameter schema (which only defines image_data as base64 image data), creating minor ambiguity about how analysis results should be passed. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description neither meaningfully compensates nor harms.

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 states a specific verb ('Upload'), a resource ('Supabase Storage'), and the objects ('image or analysis results'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings analyze_image and get_security_status, which are read/analysis operations, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

Usage is implied: when you have image or analysis results to persist to Supabase Storage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion criteria. An agent must infer that this is the storage step after analysis, which the sibling names hint at but the description never states.

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