supabase_insert

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden for a write operation. It discloses the return of inserted records and the vague 'allowed table' restriction, but says nothing about conflict/duplicate handling, permission requirements, batch size limits, or whether the write is reversible.

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 filler and no redundancy. Its brevity reflects missing content rather than wasted content.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It partially compensates by mentioning the return value, but omits error/conflict behavior and the constraint that makes a table 'allowed'.

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% for both required parameters, so the description must compensate. It only restates that rows go into a table, adding no detail on the shape of each row object, required keys, or batch limits.

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 specific verb (insert), resource (rows), and target (an allowed table), plus the return behavior (inserted records). It is clear on its own but never distinguishes itself from the close sibling supabase_upsert, which an agent must choose against.

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 insert versus upsert, update, or select, which are all present as siblings. The phrase 'allowed table' hints at a precondition but does not explain it as a usage rule.

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