supabase_execute_sql

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

With no annotations, the description carries transparency. It discloses that statements run via the Management API and that destructive statements are guarded by a confirm flag, but it omits return behavior, permission requirements, and other operational details.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and safety condition. Every clause is relevant and no filler is present.

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 database execution tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the confirm guard, but it does not explain return values, transaction behavior, or permission expectations, leaving gaps for an agent evaluating execution consequences.

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 the parameter semantics are already documented. The description reinforces the confirm flag's role for destructive statements but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: running a SQL statement against a Supabase project's database, and adds the Management API context. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like supabase_apply_migration.

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 description notes that destructive statements require confirm: true, which is a useful condition, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as supabase_apply_migration or read-only project tools.

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