supabase_storage_upload

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the base64-encoded content requirement. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior (e.g., upsert), authentication needs, or error/failure semantics, leaving some behavioral gaps beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and key constraint ('base64-encoded content'). Every word earns its place.

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 schema and annotations cover parameters and safety, but the description lacks information about return values or success/failure behavior (no output schema exists). It also does not mention upsert semantics, though that is in the schema. Overall, it is minimally sufficient but with notable gaps for a storage upload tool.

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 all parameters are well-documented. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond reiterating base64-encoded content, which the schema already specifies for fileBody. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 ('Upload') and the resource ('a file to a storage bucket'), with a parenthetical about base64 content. This distinguishes it from sibling storage tools like download, delete, and move. The verb+resource structure is specific and unambiguous.

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 for uploading base64-encoded files to buckets but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. It gives no exclusions or references to sibling tools, though the base64 constraint provides some contextual guidance. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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