Supabase: Invoke function batch

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation; the description adds nothing about what those side effects are or how they compound when a function runs N times. Critically, nothing is said about failure semantics -- whether the batch aborts on the first error, continues, or returns per-payload results -- which is the main behavioral question for a batch 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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the batch distinction, with no filler. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is tag noise, but otherwise the phrasing is tight.

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, non-idempotent 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves real gaps: payload element shape, result-array format, and error behavior. It is enough to identify the tool but not enough to invoke it confidently the first time.

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% for all three required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains that "site" identifies the Supabase project, that "function_name" must match an existing edge function, or that each element of the untyped "payloads" array is passed as the function's request body.

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 names a specific verb+resource ("Invoke an Edge Function") and adds the key differentiator "multiple times with different payloads," which distinguishes it from the single-invocation sibling supabase_invoke_function without naming it. The purpose is clear, though it never explicitly routes to or away from the singular variant.

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?

"Useful for batch processing" is only an implied usage hint; there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of repeated supabase_invoke_function calls, no batch-size or rate-limit advice, and no exclusions. An agent must guess whether the payloads run sequentially, in parallel, or with any limit.

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