Generate SaaS Database Schema

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) indicate safe, non-modifying behavior. Description adds value by explaining the output is a complete SQL schema ready to run, and clarifies what is included (indexes, security baseline). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is concise: a single introductory sentence, followed by a structured list of arguments with examples. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loading of the purpose is effective. No redundant or vague statements.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return format (SQL statements) and includes examples. It covers the essential behavioral context for an agent to decide on invocation.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. Description reinforces parameter meaning via examples (e.g., showing saas_type values and custom_tables usage). This adds contextual value beyond the schema descriptions, especially for custom_tables.

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?

Description clearly states it generates a specific resource (Supabase/PostgreSQL database schema) listing included elements (tables, columns, foreign keys, indexes, security baseline). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on design systems, RLS policies, and info, making the tool's unique purpose unambiguous.

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?

Description provides examples that imply typical use cases (e.g., generating schema for 'StockFlow' or 'invoice generator'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools are different enough that context is implied, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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