supabase_functions_invoke

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, which already signal that this is a non-idempotent write with potential side effects. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or response handling, so it fails to add 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, immediately stating the tool's function. There is no wasted text, and the structure is optimally front-loaded. It earns a perfect score because every word is necessary and clear.

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?

This tool has 4 parameters including nested objects and is a non-idempotent operation, yet the description gives no context about expected response format, error behavior, or prerequisites. The annotations and schema provide some safety and parameter info, but for an invocation tool with no output schema, the description is too thin to be considered complete.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), including the functionName, method enum, body object, and headers object. The description itself adds no parameter-level information, but since the schema already carries that load, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb 'Invoke' and the resource 'Supabase Edge Function', making the tool's core purpose obvious. It is distinct from the sibling tool supabase_rpc (which invokes database RPCs) by explicitly naming Edge Functions, though it doesn't call out that distinction.

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 other tools like supabase_rpc, or any context involving prerequisites or edge cases. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so the agent receives no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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