supabase_invite_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that an email is sent and the user state is 'invited', but fails to mention idempotency behavior (can the same email be invited twice?), authentication requirements, or what happens if the user already exists.

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 with two sentences. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise without value for the agent, slightly detracting from an otherwise efficient structure.

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 zero schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation operation with side effects (email delivery), the description is insufficient. It lacks return value information, error scenarios, and detailed parameter semantics necessary for safe invocation.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It implies 'email' through context, but completely fails to explain critical parameters like 'site' (which Supabase project/instance), 'redirect_to' (post-acceptance URL), or the expected format of 'user_metadata'.

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 action (send email invitation) and the specific outcome (creates user in 'invited' state), which implicitly distinguishes it from sibling `supabase_create_user`. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools or clarify the distinction for the agent.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus `supabase_create_user` or other user creation methods. No prerequisites (e.g., admin privileges) or conditions (e.g., user doesn't exist yet) are mentioned.

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