supabase_delete_rows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical safety guard (filter requirement) but lacks other behavioral details such as return values (count of deleted rows?), error handling, transaction behavior, or reversibility that would be expected for a destructive operation.

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 with the action front-loaded. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unnecessary metadata that slightly wastes space, but the safety warning is appropriately prominent and the description avoids verbose redundancy.

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?

Given zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description covers the essential safety warning for a destructive tool but leaves significant gaps in parameter documentation. Without an output schema, it should ideally describe what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, deleted count), which it does not.

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. While it mentions 'filter conditions' which maps to the filters parameter, it provides no guidance on the site (project identifier?), table (format?), or use_service_role (authentication implications?) parameters. Compensation is minimal.

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 verb (Delete) and resource (rows) with the scope (matching filter conditions). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like supabase_update_rows or supabase_query_table in the text itself, only relying on the tool name for distinction.

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?

Provides explicit safety constraint: 'Always requires at least one filter to prevent accidental full-table deletion.' This tells the agent when the tool is applicable (with filters) and implies the risk of misuse. However, it does not suggest alternatives like supabase_query_table for non-destructive operations.

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