Supabase: Unban user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral outcome (sign-in is restored) but says nothing about required permissions, error behavior for non-banned users, or whether other session/state is affected. Notably it does not clarify idempotency, which is non-obvious for an unban operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the bracketed '[UNIFIED]' prefix is the only noise. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly the source of the gaps elsewhere.

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 mutation with two fully undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description does too little: it never defines 'site', never states the result of a successful unban (user state, response shape), and gives no failure modes. The annotations carry the safety story, but the parameter and outcome gaps remain.

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 two required parameters ('site', 'user_id'), and the description supplies no meaning for either — not what 'site' identifies (project/instance selector?) nor the expected user_id format. With no enum or nested structure to lean on, the description leaves parameter semantics entirely undocumented.

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+resource ('Remove ban from a user') and adds the concrete effect ('allowing them to sign in again'), which distinguishes it from the sibling supabase_ban_user without needing the schema. It does not explicitly name the inverse operation, but the effect is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the outcome ('allowing them to sign in again') — an agent can infer this is the tool for reversing a ban. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of what happens if the user was never banned, and no reference to alternatives or prerequisites.

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