Supabase: Create table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds nothing: it does not mention that enable_rls defaults to true, that calling it twice will fail because the tool is not idempotent, or what happens on name collisions. For a destructive mutation tool, this leaves significant behavioral gaps that the annotations do not fill.

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?

A single tight sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is arguably too short rather than too long, and the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds no meaning, but there is no wasted verbiage.

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 non-idempotent, destructive create-table tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the definition is markedly under-specified. An agent cannot know how to describe columns, what 'site' identifies, or what RLS behavior to expect without trial and error.

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% across 5 parameters. The description mentions 'specified columns,' which maps loosely to the columns array, but says nothing about the shape of column objects, the site parameter, the schema parameter (defaulting to 'public'), or the security-relevant enable_rls default. The schema itself only supplies defaults and types, so the description should have compensated and does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new database table') and adds the scope of specifying columns. It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like supabase_drop_table or supabase_get_table_schema, nor does it clarify when it is better than, say, running raw SQL through a query tool.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites stated, and no exclusions. The agent learns nothing about required Supabase project configuration, permissions, or whether the table should be created through this tool versus a migration-style query. The single 'when to use' signal is implied by the name alone.

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