supabase_upload_file

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It communicates the base64 encoding requirement but fails to describe mutation semantics (despite having an 'upsert' parameter), return values, conflict resolution behavior, or authorization requirements.

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?

Efficient two-sentence structure with purpose front-loaded. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise but doesn't significantly impact readability. No redundant or wasted language beyond that prefix.

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 6-parameter file upload tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions. Missing explanations for bucket/path semantics, content_type defaults, upsert behavior, and success/error responses. The base64 hint alone is insufficient coverage.

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 across 6 parameters. The description compensates minimally by explaining content_base64 format but leaves site, bucket, path, content_type, and upsert completely undocumented despite their semantic complexity.

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 specific action ('Upload') and target ('file to storage'), clearly distinguishing from sibling operations like download, move, or delete. Deducted one point because it doesn't explicitly clarify this targets Supabase Storage specifically, though the tool name provides this context.

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 critical usage constraint that 'Content should be base64 encoded,' which guides proper parameter formatting. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. siblings (e.g., supabase_move_file) or prerequisites like bucket existence.

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