Supabase: Upload file

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent already knows this mutates state. The description adds nothing about what is destroyed — specifically whether an existing object at `path` is overwritten, or whether upsert is required to permit that, and what error occurs on collision. For a destructive, non-idempotent write that is the single most important behavioral question, and it goes unanswered.

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 with no filler and the base64 requirement front-loaded in a useful position. It is efficiently written, though the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is noise that does not earn its place.

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?

A destructive, non-idempotent write with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema needs considerably more than two sentences. Nothing tells the agent how to form site/bucket/path values, what upsert does, or what a successful versus failed upload looks like.

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 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains only content_base64 ('base64 encoded') and leaves site, bucket, path, upsert, and content_type entirely undefined — notably upsert, whose default of false fundamentally changes the tool's overwrite behavior.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Upload a file to storage.' Combined with the tool name, an agent can tell it writes a file into Supabase storage. It does not differentiate from the many sibling upload tools (wordpress_upload_media_from_base64, gitea_upload_start/chunk/finish), and the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is opaque rather than informative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no explanation of when upsert should be chosen over the default. The only usable signal is the implied 'you have base64 content and want it in storage', which the agent must infer.

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