supabase_migration_repair

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. 'Repair' implies state mutation (likely destructive), but no details are given about side effects, required permissions, or whether changes are reversible. The description is opaque, scoring 1.

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 extremely concise (3 words), but it sacrifices clarity. It earns its place as a brief statement but fails to provide enough context for a tool that likely modifies state. A score of 3 reflects reasonable brevity with insufficient substance.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a vague name, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'repair' entails, how it differs from rollback, or what the outcome is. For a tool with potential destructive impact, this is inadequate.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but there is nothing to add. It could hint at how the tool works without params, but it's acceptable given no parameters.

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 'Repair migration history' identifies a verb and resource, indicating the tool is for fixing migration history. However, it is vague: 'repair' could mean multiple actions (e.g., reapply, skip, reset), and it does not distinguish from sibling tools like rollback_migration or deploy_migration. A score of 3 reflects adequate but ambiguous purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include rollback, deploy, and list migrations, but the description offers no context for when 'repair' is appropriate. This leaves the agent without decision clarity.

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