supabase_update_bucket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While 'Update' implies mutation, the description fails to specify if changes are immediate, what happens if the bucket doesn't exist, whether modifications are destructive to existing files, or what permissions are required.

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?

Single sentence format is appropriately concise. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unnecessary metadata that slightly detracts, but the core information is efficiently presented without redundancy.

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?

With 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context: error handling behavior, return values, whether updates are atomic, and the specific data formats expected for the string-typed settings fields.

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%. The description mentions three optional parameters (public, file_size_limit, allowed_mime_types) but provides no semantic details about expected formats (e.g., is file_size_limit bytes or a string with units? Is allowed_mime_types comma-separated?). It completely omits the two required parameters (site, bucket_id).

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 action (Update) and resource (bucket settings), listing specific configurable fields (public access, file size limit, MIME types). However, it relies on the tool name prefix to distinguish from appwrite_update_bucket rather than the description text itself, and the '[UNIFIED]' tag is implementation noise.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus supabase_create_bucket or supabase_empty_bucket. No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., that the bucket must exist). No indication of whether partial updates are supported or if all settings must be specified.

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