Supabase: Delete files

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds nothing on top of that. It does not say that deletion is irreversible, what happens when a path does not exist, whether the whole batch fails atomically or partially succeeds, or what the response reports — all of which matter for a non-idempotent destructive call.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and free of padding. The only blemish is the leading "[UNIFIED]" tag, which consumes attention without conveying actionable meaning.

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, non-idempotent, three-parameter batch operation with no output schema and zero schema-level parameter documentation, the definition is materially under-specified. An agent cannot determine the path format, the role of `site`, or the failure semantics of a partial batch from what is written.

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 three required parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. It implies that `paths` accepts multiple entries and that `bucket` scopes them, but `site` is never mentioned or explained, and there is no detail on path format, prefixes, or whether entries are file keys versus globs.

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?

"Delete one or more files from a bucket" gives a specific verb (delete), resource (files), and scope (one or more, within a bucket). It is clear enough to act on, but it does not differentiate itself from near-neighbours like gitea_delete_file or supabase_delete_bucket, and the "[UNIFIED]" prefix is unexplained jargon that adds no discriminating information.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (bucket must exist, caller needs write/delete permission on storage), and no mention of when a caller should prefer supabase_delete_bucket or the Gitea file-delete sibling instead. The agent is left to infer all routing from the tool name alone.

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