Supabase: Empty bucket

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 description's "delete all files" adds no behavioral information beyond them. It is silent on whether deletion is reversible, whether bucket metadata/configuration survives, and whether any confirmation or elevated privileges are required. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is a restatement rather than added context.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core action (delete all files) is front-loaded ahead of the sequencing note. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no annotation gaps, the definition is minimally sufficient: an agent knows what it does and when to call it. However, with 0% schema coverage it should at least clarify the site parameter and the fate of the bucket itself after emptying.

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%, so the description bears full responsibility for parameter meaning, yet it explains neither parameter. bucket_id is inferable from the prose, but "site" (which Supabase project/instance) is entirely undefined in both the schema and the description.

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 all files in a bucket" names a specific verb and resource, and the word "all" distinguishes it from the sibling supabase_delete_files, which presumably targets individual files. It is immediately clear what the tool operates on, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

"Use before delete_bucket" gives an explicit ordering constraint tied to a sibling tool, which is exactly the kind of sequencing guidance an agent needs. It does not state any when-not condition (e.g., whether it is needed at all if the bucket is non-empty and delete_bucket can handle it).

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