Supabase: Execute rpc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful PostgREST exposure constraint, but says nothing about what a call can mutate, how errors surface, or the security implications of the service-role flag — context that matters for a destructive tool.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the constraint immediately after; nothing is padded. The "[UNIFIED]" token is the one element that does not earn its place.

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, non-idempotent mutation tool with zero parameter documentation and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell how to encode arguments, what the response contains, or how the service-role flag changes behavior.

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 four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. It never explains the argument payload format (the schema types 'params' as a string, which is non-obvious), the meaning of 'site', or that 'use_service_role' bypasses row-level security — the highest-risk parameter is left entirely 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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Execute a stored procedure or database function via RPC", which distinguishes it from raw-SQL execution siblings such as supabase_execute_sql. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix adds no meaning and the description never names an alternative, but the core action 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?

The only guidance is a prerequisite: "Functions must be exposed through PostgREST." There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over supabase_execute_sql or the schema-inspection siblings, so the agent must infer that this is for calling pre-defined functions rather than ad-hoc SQL.

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