Supabase: Enable rls

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is conveyed structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – it does not say what happens to existing policies, whether access is blocked for existing roles, or what privileges are required – so with annotation coverage present this is a minimal contribution.

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, but the "[UNIFIED]" tag is noise and the brevity comes at the cost of any operational detail. It is concise without being informative.

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 destructive security-configuration mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should explain what changes, what is affected, and any permission requirements. None of that is present, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the annotations and parameter names.

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 three parameters, but this is a simple tool whose parameters are self-describing by name: site, table, and an optional schema defaulting to "public". The description's "on a table" implicitly anchors the table parameter. A short note on the target site and schema scoping would have helped, but the gap is small for such a minimal tool.

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 ("Enable Row Level Security on a table") and is clearly distinguishable from the sibling supabase_disable_rls. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is opaque internal tagging that adds no meaning, but the core sentence 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 this tool should be used, no prerequisites (e.g. ownership or admin rights), no mention of the counterpart disable tool, and no note on whether tables can be restored to their prior state. Everything is left to inference.

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