supabase_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that unfiltered deletes are refused, which is real behavioral information for a destructive op. But it omits irreversibility, permission/auth requirements, and any side effects on related rows.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the safety-relevant constraint is stated. It is arguably too terse for a destructive tool, but it is not padded.

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 a destructive two-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, one sentence is not enough. Filter syntax, table qualification, permissions, and return/confirmation behavior are all absent.

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% and the filters parameter is an opaque nested object of string values, so the description is the only source of param meaning. It only restates that filters are required (already in the schema) and never explains filter key/value syntax or how table names are resolved, leaving the critical filter format undocumented.

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 (delete) and resource (rows) and the scope condition (matching required filters). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like supabase_select/insert/update, though it never names them explicitly.

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 clause 'unrestricted deletes are rejected' tells the agent that filters are mandatory, which is useful precondition guidance. However, it offers no when-to-use framing, no guidance on delete vs upsert/update, and no prerequisites such as permissions or required confirmation.

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