Supabase: Drop column

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known from structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not state that column data is permanently lost, how the cascade flag affects dependent objects, or what happens on a nonexistent column. With annotations present the bar is lower, but zero added context still earns only a 2.

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?

The sentence is short and front-loaded, which is good, but its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine economy. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix consumes space without conveying anything 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?

This is an irreversible DDL mutation with 5 undocumented parameters and no output schema. Given that complexity, the definition should at minimum explain the cascade parameter and the destructive/irreversible nature of the operation; one sentence is inadequate.

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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it does not. It implies only table and column_name; the meaning of site, the schema default of "public", and especially cascade (a high-risk flag affecting dependent objects) are completely unexplained.

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?

"Remove a column from a table" names a specific verb (remove) and resource (column) and makes the effect obvious without opening the schema. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like supabase_drop_table or supabase_add_column, and the "[UNIFIED]" prefix is opaque noise, but the core purpose 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., drop table, executing raw SQL), and no prerequisites such as required permissions or confirmation. Nothing warns the agent that this is a data-destroying operation that should only be invoked on explicit user request.

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