supabase_update_user

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether changes are immediate, if email changes trigger verification flows, or required permission levels. The 'UNIFIED' label suggests wrapper behavior that is not explained.

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 structure is efficient, but the '[UNIFIED]' metadata tag at the beginning is clutter that does not help an AI agent select or invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Inadequate for a 9-parameter user management tool with no annotations and no output schema. Critical gaps include missing descriptions for required parameters and no explanation of the relationship between this tool and the ban-specific sibling 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the sole source for 9 parameters but only implicitly documents 4-5 fields while completely omitting required parameters 'site' and 'user_id', plus 'email_confirm' and 'phone_confirm'. The 'ban status' reference lacks a corresponding schema field.

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 the tool updates user details with specific fields (email, password, phone, metadata), but creates confusion by mentioning 'ban status' when dedicated siblings supabase_ban_user and supabase_unban_user exist. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise without explaining what is unified.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the specialized supabase_ban_user/unban_user tools, nor when to use it versus creating a new user. No prerequisites or conditions are specified.

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