Supabase Create Project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: it discloses that the call provisions billable resources, requires human approval, and can return an approval_required refusal rather than succeeding. It does not describe what happens on partial failure or duplicate-name errors, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences with explicit 'Use when:' and 'Returns:' labels. The most important constraint (billable write, human approval) is front-loaded and every clause carries information.

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, open-world provisioning call, the description covers the approval gating, the duplicate-avoidance precondition, and the failure return. An output schema exists, so the brief return sketch is a bonus rather than a gap.

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 100%, so all five parameters including the approval_id workflow are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Create') plus resource ('Supabase project'), and it flags the operation class ('live write that provisions billable resources'). This is enough to distinguish it from read-only siblings like supabase_list_projects and supabase_list_orgs without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit 'Use when: the app has no backend project yet' gives the triggering condition, and 'Check supabase_list_projects first to avoid duplicates' names the concrete alternative to consult before invoking. Nothing about when to reach for this tool versus its siblings 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.