supabase_invoke_function

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the POST method and body parameter but omits critical behavioral traits: error handling (what happens on function failure), timeout behavior, whether the invocation is synchronous/blocking, and the structure of return values.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences with minimal verbosity. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata leakage that doesn't aid the agent, slightly reducing the score from perfect.

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 the complex nature of edge function invocation (network calls with potential side effects), the description is inadequate. It lacks essential context about return values, error scenarios, and parameter specifications that an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 for all four parameters. It only provides semantic guidance for 'body' ('Pass data in the body parameter'), leaving 'site', 'function_name', and 'headers' completely undocumented regarding expected formats or valid values.

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 invokes a Supabase Edge Function using POST method, distinguishing it from the sibling 'supabase_invoke_function_get'. However, it does not differentiate from 'supabase_invoke_function_batch', leaving ambiguity about when to use single versus batch invocation.

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 a usage hint about passing data in the body parameter but fails to specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., batch variant for multiple calls, GET variant for idempotent queries) or mention any prerequisites like authentication requirements.

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