supabase_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds that updates are applied to rows matching the supplied filters, which clarifies the scope of the destructive action.

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 immediately conveys the action and scope. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the moderate complexity, the detailed schema, and annotations already covering destructive behavior, the description is sufficient for basic tool selection. The only gap is the return value, which is not described, but this is not critical for choosing the 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?

All three parameters (table, data, filters) are documented in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description refers to filters but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema.

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 it updates rows in a Supabase table based on filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like insert, delete, and upsert by using the specific verb 'update' and the filter-based scope.

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 updating existing rows that match filters, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like upsert or delete, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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