supabase_insert

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write operation is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as RLS implications, return values, or conflict error semantics. It merely restates the insert action without enriching beyond 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 directly states the tool's purpose without any redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple insert tool but has clear gaps: it does not mention return values or error behavior, which matters because no output schema is present. It also does not clarify how onConflict relates to upsert behavior, though the schema provides that. These gaps prevent a higher score.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for table, data, and onConflict. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; 'one or more rows' is already reflected in the schema's anyOf for data. Baseline 3 applies because schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Insert'), the resource ('Supabase table'), and the scope ('one or more rows'). It distinguishes from siblings like supabase_update (which modifies existing rows) and supabase_upsert (which also inserts but with conflict handling), though it doesn't explicitly mention 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like supabase_upsert or supabase_update. The description only states the basic action without mentioning conflict handling, prerequisites, or exclusions. The existence of supabase_upsert makes this absence particularly noticeable.

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