Supabase: Insert rows

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description adds nothing about what upsert does to conflicting rows, what happens without on_conflict, or that use_service_role likely bypasses row-level security — high-impact behavior left undisclosed for a mutation 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 short sentences with the core operation front-loaded and no filler. Efficiency is achieved, though the space saved is not spent on information that would help an agent call the tool correctly.

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, six-parameter write tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition is too thin: it does not address conflict behavior, service-role elevation, or what the call returns. An agent could easily misuse upsert or on_conflict based on this text.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining six parameters, and it only incidentally touches 'rows' and 'upsert'. `site`, `table`, `on_conflict` and `use_service_role` receive no explanation at all, leaving the most consequential flags 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 description states a concrete verb and resource ('Insert one or more rows into a table'), which is enough to distinguish it from supabase_update_rows and supabase_delete_rows on the sibling list. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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?

'Supports upsert mode for insert-or-update operation' implies when upsert is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on choosing this over supabase_update_rows or supabase_execute_sql, and no mention of prerequisites such as required table permissions or RLS considerations. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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