create_supabase_project

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes far beyond, explaining that it changes an external account, consumes a project slot, affects billing, and that the password is intentionally never returned. It also discloses asynchronous provisioning behavior and the polling requirement. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the most critical facts: external impact, prerequisites, and confirmation. Every sentence provides essential operational guidance, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (external side effects, async provisioning, secrets handling), the description covers everything an agent needs: prerequisites, confirmation, password behavior, polling instructions, and anti-repeated calls. The output schema exists, but the description still clarifies the async flow.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The description adds value by emphasizing that the name, organizationId, and region must be exactly what the user confirmed and selected from the list tools, and that supabaseIntegrationInstanceId comes from list_integration_instances. This is beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool creates a new Supabase project in the customer's selected organization, distinguishing it from related tools like list_supabase_projects and get_supabase_project_status. It specifies the resource (Supabase organization) and the action (create project with specific parameters like name, organization, and region).

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?

The description explicitly instructs when to use this tool, listing prerequisites (list_supabase_organizations and list_supabase_regions) and requiring user confirmation. It also explicitly says when NOT to use it again, advising to poll status instead. This is exemplary guidance.

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