Supabase: Delete bucket

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's main added value, the empty-bucket precondition, is essentially usage guidance rather than new behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about permission/auth requirements, what error surfaces when the bucket is non-empty, or whether deletion is recoverable.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and the blocking precondition immediately after. The "[UNIFIED]" tag is the only wasted token. No filler or restatement of the title beyond the necessary verb-resource phrase.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical operational constraint but omits parameter meaning entirely and says nothing about auth scope or failure modes. An agent can call it correctly only if it already knows what `site` means from elsewhere.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it explains neither parameter. The `bucket_id` value is only obliquely implied by "a storage bucket", and the required `site` parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving the agent to guess which Supabase instance it targets.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Delete a storage bucket"), which an agent can immediately distinguish from siblings like supabase_get_bucket or supabase_update_bucket. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is noise but does not obscure the intent. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from object-level deletion tools such as supabase_delete_files, which a 5 would require.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition ("Bucket must be empty first") and names the alternative to satisfy it ("use empty_bucket"), which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs to avoid a failed call. It does not state when-not-to-use cases, such as preferring supabase_delete_files for removing contents instead of the whole bucket.

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