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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, so the description adds value by clarifying data migration behavior (does not carry production data) and that it creates a new branch with its own project_ref. However, it could disclose more about side effects like cost implications (given confirm_cost_id) or whether this is reversible, but the core behavioral trait is covered.

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 relatively concise with two paragraphs, front-loading the main purpose and key caveat (no production data). It adds bulk support at the end. Every sentence provides useful information, though the bulk mention could be integrated earlier. Slight redundancy: 'The branch will get its own project_id via the resulting project_ref' could be simplified, but overall it's well-structured.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description leaves gaps: it doesn't explain what happens after cost confirmation, how to specify the branch name, or what the successful response looks like. It covers the essential steps (apply migrations, get project_ref) but not edge cases or error conditions. Adequate for basic use but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are only named in the schema without descriptions. The description mentions 'project_ref' but does not link it to the 'project_id' parameter or explain the purpose of 'name' or 'confirm_cost_id' beyond implicit context (cost confirmation). It partially compensates by mentioning bulk support (project_ids, confirm_cost_ids) but leaves ambiguity about required vs optional parameters and their roles.

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 clearly states the tool creates a development branch on a Supabase project, applying migrations from the main project to a fresh branch database. It differentiates from siblings like supabase_delete_branch and supabase_merge_branch by focusing on creation, but does not explicitly contrast with supabase_create_project. The verb 'creates' and resource 'branch' are specific, though 'development' could be ambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool (to create a branch for development) and notes important usage details: production data does not carry overigham and that the branch gets a project_id for subsequent queries/migrations. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, and bulk support is mentioned but not how to choose between single and bulk parameters.

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