supabase_add_column

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose critical DDL behavior: whether this locks the table, valid values for column_type, what happens if the column already exists, or what the function returns. 'UNIFIED' prefix appears to be metadata noise without behavioral meaning.

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 functional description is a single efficient sentence, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds metadata cruft without value. Given the high parameter count and zero schema documentation, the description is inappropriately brief rather than truly concise.

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 DDL/schema-modification tool with 7 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is dangerously incomplete. It omits warnings about table locks, permission requirements, and constraints on column defaults that are essential for safe usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 7 parameters, the description completely fails to compensate. No mention of what 'site' refers to (project ID vs URL), valid PostgreSQL types for column_type, or that 'schema' refers to the database schema namespace (defaulting to 'public').

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?

States specific verb (Add) and resource (column) with scope clarification ('to an existing table'), which implicitly distinguishes it from sibling supabase_create_table. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from supabase_drop_column or address when schema modifications are appropriate vs. other operations.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating a table with columns upfront vs. adding later), nor does it mention prerequisites like table existence checks or required privileges for schema modification.

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