supabase_enable_rls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the action (enabling RLS), it fails to warn about critical implications: that enabling RLS without corresponding policies will block all access, or that this is a schema-level security change requiring elevated permissions.

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 description is brief (one sentence), but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be internal metadata rather than user-facing documentation, reducing clarity. Otherwise, it avoids verbosity, though it errs on the side of under-specification.

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 security-sensitive mutation tool with no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks warnings about the security implications, the irreversible nature of the change (without using disable_rls), and documentation for all input parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the three parameters (site, table, schema). It fails to do so—it does not clarify that 'site' refers to the Supabase project identifier, or that 'schema' defaults to 'public', leaving all parameters undocumented.

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 core statement 'Enable Row Level Security on a table' clearly identifies the verb and resource, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata leakage rather than helpful context. It does not differentiate from the sibling tool supabase_disable_rls or explain when enabling is appropriate.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (like supabase_disable_rls), nor does it mention prerequisites such as admin privileges or the need to create policies after enabling RLS to avoid locking out data access.

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