supabase_auth_update_user

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds field-level detail but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like whether email updates trigger verification, whether password changes invalidate sessions, or whether it returns the updated user. It adds minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and key resources. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 update tool with complete schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it does not specify the return value or side effects, and the wording 'or metadata' could mislead about updating multiple fields at once. The annotations cover the destructive nature, but more context about behavioral outcomes would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described, so the description does not need to explain them. It lists a subset of fields in prose but adds no meaning beyond the schema. The nested metadata objects are only mentioned as 'metadata', not elaborated.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource as a 'user' with concrete fields (email, password, phone, metadata). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling auth tools like create_user, get_user, and delete_user.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as supabase_update (generic table update) or other auth-specific tools. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, so the agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling context.

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