supabase_create_bucket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully explains the visibility/access control implications of the public parameter ('accessible without auth'). However, it omits critical mutation behaviors: idempotency (behavior if bucket exists), return value structure (since no output schema exists), permission requirements, or error conditions.

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 appropriately brief at two sentences, but front-loaded with the '[UNIFIED]' implementation tag which wastes valuable semantic space. Otherwise, the structure is efficient with the core action stated immediately after the tag.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks return value documentation (what identifies the created bucket?), required parameter explanations (what is 'site'?), and error handling context. The complexity of the tool demands richer documentation than provided.

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%, requiring the description to compensate for all 5 parameters. The description only implicitly addresses the 'public' parameter's semantics. It fails to explain: 'site' (project reference format?), 'name' (constraints?), 'file_size_limit' (bytes? string format?), and 'allowed_mime_types' (comma-separated? JSON array?). This is a significant documentation gap.

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 'Create a new storage bucket' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like supabase_update_bucket and supabase_delete_bucket by specifying 'Create' and 'new'. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is implementation noise that slightly obscures the purpose, and it lacks differentiation guidance regarding when to create vs. update existing buckets.

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 mentions the public/private distinction ('accessible without auth'), which provides minimal usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus supabase_update_bucket, prerequisites for creation (e.g., required permissions), or when creation might fail (e.g., duplicate bucket names).

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