Supabase: Update policy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless earns credit by disclosing the mechanism — "Drops and recreates the policy" — which explains why the operation is destructive and implies a brief window where the policy is absent and that unspecified attributes may be reset.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the behavioral caveat. Tight and waste-free apart from the unexplained "[UNIFIED]" token.

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 destructive mutation with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition is far too thin — an agent cannot populate required fields like definition or command semantically, nor anticipate what the response contains after the drop/recreate.

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 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails: it says nothing about name, site, table, schema, definition, check, roles, or command, including the notable defaults (roles=["authenticated"], command="ALL", schema="public").

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 and resource ("Update an existing RLS policy"), which clearly distinguishes it from supabase_create_policy and supabase_delete_policy. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is unexplained noise that adds no discriminating information.

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 on when to update versus drop-and-recreate via delete_policy/create_policy, and no prerequisites such as required permissions or whether the table/schema must already exist. The agent must infer everything from the verb.

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