supabase_create_policy

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 but offers minimal information. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description fails to specify error behavior (e.g., if a policy name already exists), whether the operation is atomic, or what the return value indicates.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action. However, given the high complexity (8 undocumented parameters) and lack of supporting schema documentation, this level of brevity constitutes under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 database security tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is inadequate. It lacks explanation of RLS concepts, parameter details, prerequisites, and return behavior necessary for correct agent invocation.

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 significantly. It fails to do so, providing no explanation for critical parameters like 'definition' (expected SQL expression format), 'check' (WITH CHECK clause semantics), 'command' (valid operations like ALL/SELECT/INSERT), or 'roles' (array format). Only the 'table' parameter is implicitly referenced.

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 the action ('Create') and target resource ('Row Level Security (RLS) policy'), and specifies the scope ('on a table'). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'supabase_enable_rls' (which activates RLS on a table) or clarify when to use 'create' vs 'update' vs 'delete' policy tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Critical prerequisites are missing, such as the requirement that RLS must first be enabled on the table (via supabase_enable_rls) before policies take effect, or that one should check existing policies with supabase_list_policies to avoid name conflicts.

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