supabase_ban_user

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavioral trait (sign-in restriction) and temporary nature, but omits reversibility details, existing session handling, and the critical semantic difference between 'none' (default) and null for duration.

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?

Two sentences, zero redundancy beyond the '[UNIFIED]' prefix. Information is front-loaded with action and consequence clearly stated.

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?

Inadequate given zero schema annotations and no output schema. A user management tool with auth implications needs parameter documentation (especially 'site' for multi-tenancy and duration format) and return value description, which are absent.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description mentions 'duration' but provides no format guidance (hours? ISO 8601? what does 'none' mean?). Completely omits semantics for 'site' (project ref? URL?) and 'user_id' (UUID format?), leaving all 3 parameters undocumented.

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?

Specific verb ('Ban') + resource ('user') + effect ('cannot sign in') + scope ('specified duration'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling supabase_unban_user and supabase_delete_user by emphasizing the temporary restriction aspect.

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?

Implies usage through behavioral effect ('cannot sign in'), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance vs alternatives like supabase_delete_user (permanent removal) or supabase_unban_user (reversal). No mention of whether null duration means permanent ban or no-op.

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