Supabase: Invoke function

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond the method: it never says the invoked function may mutate data, may be non-idempotent, or that failures/timeouts are possible, which 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 short, front-loaded sentences with no padding. The '[UNIFIED]' tag is noise but minor.

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 invoke tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description is too thin: it gives no return-value shape, no auth/header guidance, and no failure behavior. It covers the minimal call mechanics but not enough for safe use.

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 all four parameters (site, function_name, headers, body) are undocumented. The description only says to pass data in 'body' and says nothing about how headers are supplied, e.g. for auth, or what site/function_name must contain.

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 ('Invoke a Supabase Edge Function') plus the HTTP method used. It implicitly separates itself from supabase_invoke_function_get and _batch via 'POST method', though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the GET or batch variants, or versus supabase_test_function. The only scoping hint is the POST method, which an agent must infer as the selection criterion.

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