Supabase: Test function

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent already knows this mutates state. The description adds nothing here; worse, the word 'Test' conventionally suggests a sandboxed dry run, which sits uneasily with destructiveHint=true, and the description never clarifies that the function is really executed with real side effects.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and return behavior, with no padding beyond the '[UNIFIED]' prefix, which is internal taxonomy noise rather than useful signal.

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 4-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no documented parameters, this is well under-specified. An agent cannot tell what site means, what method changes, what format test_data requires, or how to distinguish this from the plain invoke tools.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the full explanatory burden, and it does not. 'Sample data' loosely gestures at test_data, but site, method (defaulting to POST), and function_name are entirely unexplained, including how test_data should be serialized.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Test an Edge Function with sample data and return the response.' That is far better than a tautology. It stops short of a 5 because it never distinguishes this from close siblings such as supabase_invoke_function or supabase_invoke_function_get, which an agent must choose between.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'Test ... with sample data' weakly implies pre-deployment validation, but the description never says how this differs from invoking the function normally or which of the several function-related siblings to pick.

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