supabase_insert_rows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions upsert mode (implying idempotency options) but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether the operation returns inserted data, error behavior on constraint violations, or the security implications of 'use_service_role' parameter.

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 appropriately brief at two sentences. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise rather than descriptive content, but the remaining text efficiently conveys the core capability without redundancy.

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 database write operation with 6 parameters (including conflict resolution and service role flags) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks return value documentation, error handling details, and explanation of the upsert conflict resolution mechanics beyond the parameter name.

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 partially compensates by clarifying 'rows' accepts one or more records and explaining 'upsert' as 'insert-or-update'. However, it completely omits explanation of critical parameters like 'site' (project reference), 'on_conflict' (conflict resolution columns), and 'use_service_role' (elevation flag).

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 core action ('Insert one or more rows into a table') and identifies the resource (rows/table). It distinguishes this from a simple single-row insert by mentioning support for multiple rows and upsert mode. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'supabase_update_rows'.

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?

While it mentions 'upsert mode' exists, it provides no guidance on when to use upsert versus standard insert, nor when to prefer this tool over 'supabase_update_rows' for existing records. No prerequisites (e.g., table existence) or error handling guidance is provided.

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