Supabase: Add column

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens to existing rows when a non-nullable column without a default is added, whether the operation can be reverted, or what happens on name collisions. For a destructive DDL operation with seven parameters, that is a real gap.

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 single sentence is short but under-specified rather than concise; it spends words on the meaningless "[UNIFIED]" tag while omitting the parameter semantics that matter. There is no structure beyond one clause.

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?

For a seven-parameter, non-idempotent, destructive schema mutation with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description provides no information an agent needs to call it correctly. Nearly everything must be inferred from parameter names alone.

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 0% and the description mentions none of the seven parameters. It gives no meaning for column_type format (Postgres type syntax), the schema default of 'public', the nullable default of true, or how default_value interacts with nullable — all of which materially change the outcome.

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 sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Add a new column to an existing table"), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not differentiate from siblings such as supabase_create_table or supabase_drop_column, and the "[UNIFIED]" prefix is unexplained noise.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., table must exist, required privileges), and no mention of alternatives for schema changes. The only implied context is that a table already exists.

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