supabase_generate_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the operation is read-only or destructive, what the return value format is (URL string, object, etc.), or whether the generated link expires.

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 a single sentence and appropriately brief. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise that doesn't add value to the agent's understanding.

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?

Given four parameters with zero schema documentation, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanations for half the parameters and provides no information about the return value structure or link expiration 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all four parameters. While it hints at the 'link_type' values (magic, recovery, invite), it completely omits explanations for 'site' (is this a project ID, URL, or name?) and 'redirect_to' (post-authentication redirect URL?), which are critical for correct invocation.

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 clearly states the tool generates 'a magic link, recovery link, or invite link for a user,' providing specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'supabase_invite_user' by emphasizing that it generates links rather than directly sending invitations.

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 (e.g., when to use 'supabase_invite_user' instead), nor does it explain when to choose between magic links, recovery links, or invite links.

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