Supabase: Delete user factor

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 agent knows this is an irreversible mutation. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of permission requirements, whether the factor's session/enrollment is revoked, or what happens if the factor_id is invalid or already deleted.

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?

It is a single short sentence, so there is no padding, but the "[UNIFIED]" tag consumes space without meaning and the terseness is under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

A destructive, non-idempotent mutation with three undocumented parameters (0% schema coverage), no output schema, and no explanations of prerequisites or side effects. The description carries the burden here and does far too little for a tool of this risk profile.

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% for all three parameters. The description only loosely implies user_id and factor_id via "factor from a user"; the required `site` parameter is entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving a third of the inputs 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Delete an MFA factor from a user"), which is precise enough to distinguish it from supabase_delete_user (whole user) and supabase_list_user_factors. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is unexplained noise but does not obscure the purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisite that a valid factor_id must first be obtained (e.g., via supabase_list_user_factors), and no note about what happens to the user account afterward. The agent must infer all of this.

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