supabase_update_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical 'Drops and recreates' implementation detail (indicating destructive recreation), but omits side effects, error behavior if policy missing, and required authorization levels.

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?

Extremely concise at two sentences, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise. Given 8 undocumented parameters, the brevity is inadequate rather than efficient.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter explanations, return value description, and error scenarios necessary for safe invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage for 8 parameters. The description fails to compensate by explaining any parameters, including critical RLS-specific concepts like 'definition' (USING clause) vs 'check' (WITH CHECK), or valid values for 'command'.

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?

Clearly states 'Update an existing RLS policy' with specific verb and resource. The 'Drops and recreates' clause distinguishes implementation from a simple PATCH operation, differentiating it from potential alternatives.

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?

Implies usage context by specifying 'existing' policy, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over delete+create, nor mentions prerequisites like required permissions or that the policy must exist.

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