update_testers

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral transparency. It clearly warns: "WARNING: Full replacement — omitted testers lose access." and explains the effect of each parameter (e.g., empty emails removes individuals, submit_for_review controls review state). This is comprehensive for a destructive mutation tool.

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 concise yet comprehensive, with a front-loaded warning followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the total length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 annotations, no output schema, and moderate complexity (5 params, destructive action), the description is complete. It covers safety warnings, parameter details, and submission behavior. The only minor omission is not explicitly stating the default track value, but the default is implied in the schema.

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 0%, but the description adds detailed semantics for all 5 parameters, including examples (e.g., package_name: com.example.myapp), valid values (track: internal or alpha), and behavior (empty lists remove all). This significantly adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 action: "Replace the tester list for an internal or alpha track." It uses a specific verb (replace/reset) and identifies the resource (tester list) and scope (internal or alpha tracks), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_testers.

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 explicitly warns to call get_testers first to preserve existing testers, providing a clear prerequisite. It also explains the behavior of each parameter (e.g., empty lists remove all). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool (e.g., if you want to add testers incrementally without replacement).

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