supabase_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose one real guardrail: unrestricted updates are rejected. It says nothing about permission requirements, reversibility of the mutation, affected-row counts, or what the response contains, which is a significant gap for a write tool.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the core action and the key constraint. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse given how much is left undocumented.

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, nested filter/values objects, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is under-specified. An agent still lacks filter syntax, value formatting, and confirmation of what a successful update returns.

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%, so the description must compensate for all three required parameters. It conveys that 'filters' is required and match-based, but gives no syntax for filter operators, no format guidance for 'values', and no explanation of 'table'.

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 says 'Update rows matching required filters,' giving a clear verb (update) plus resource (rows) and the scoping mechanism. It does not explicitly name the near sibling supabase_upsert, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

It implies usage by stating filters are required and that unrestricted updates are rejected, which tells the agent the precondition for calling it. However, it never contrasts with supabase_upsert, supabase_insert, or supabase_delete, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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