supabase_enable_extension

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Enable') but fails to disclose idempotency (can you enable twice?), error conditions, required permissions, or side effects like schema object creation.

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?

Extremely concise (one sentence), but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be implementation metadata rather than user-facing documentation, slightly degrading the signal-to-noise ratio.

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?

Inadequate for a database mutation tool. With no output schema, no annotations, and minimal parameter documentation, the description misses crucial context such as whether enabling is reversible, what schema objects are created, or how to verify success.

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 coverage is 0% and the description fails to compensate. While 'PostgreSQL extension' hints at the 'name' parameter semantics, 'site' and 'schema' parameters are completely unexplained despite being critical for targeting the correct database instance and installation schema.

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?

States specific action (Enable) and resource (PostgreSQL extension) with helpful examples (pgvector, postgis, uuid-ossp). However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata leakage rather than descriptive content, and it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling supabase_disable_extension despite the clear verb contrast.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like supabase_disable_extension or supabase_list_extensions, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions, existing extension state) or when the operation might fail.

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