Supabase: Delete rows

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 largely carried by structured data. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the enforced filter requirement that prevents accidental full-table deletion, but says nothing about irreversibility, whether use_service_role bypasses RLS, or what a failed/partial delete returns.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the safety constraint; no filler. The bracketed "[UNIFIED]" tag adds no information an agent can act on.

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, four-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers only the filters guard rail. An agent is left guessing what `use_service_role` does and what the response contains after a delete.

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 all four parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it does not. It addresses only the shape of `filters` (at least one entry) and leaves `site`, `table`, and especially `use_service_role` — a privilege-elevating flag defaulting to false — completely undefined.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Delete rows") scoped to "rows matching filter conditions", which clearly separates it from supabase_update_rows and supabase_insert_rows. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is noise and it never names a sibling explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Implies the operating context via "matching filter conditions" and states a hard guard rail (at least one filter required), but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as update_rows or count_rows, and no prerequisites about permissions or RLS.

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