supabase_upsert

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

Annotations mark destructiveHint true, and the description adds the upsert semantics ('insert or update on conflict'), which explains the mutation behavior. However, it does not disclose consequences like partial failures, required permissions, or impact on existing data beyond the conflict. No contradiction with 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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the core verb and resource. 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?

With no output schema and a destructive mutation, the description lacks detail on return values, error handling, and when to prefer this over supabase_update/insert. The existing schema and annotations cover parameter definitions and safety flags, but contextual guidance is minimal.

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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters (100%), so the description adds no parameter-level details beyond what's in the schema. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3.

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 'upsert' and identifies the resource as 'rows in a Supabase table.' It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'insert or update on conflict,' which clearly separates it from supabase_insert and supabase_update.

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 the tool is for insert-or-update scenarios but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives. Sibling tools like supabase_insert and supabase_update exist, but no exclusions are stated.

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