Update TestFlight Build Details

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the specific function (toggle autoNotifyEnabled) but misses potential side effects like whether existing testers are affected or if the build must be in a certain state. Given annotations cover safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. It is optimally concise.

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 simplicity (two parameters, boolean action), the description is minimally acceptable. However, it lacks context on what buildBetaDetailId refers to, what the return value is, and any prerequisites. An agent might need additional info to use it correctly.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the two parameters (buildBetaDetailId and autoNotifyEnabled). The agent gets no additional meaning beyond the schema's type and name, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 specific action of enabling or disabling automatic tester invitations for external builds. It gives a specific verb ('enable or disable') and resource ('automatic tester invitations'), which distinguishes it from other beta-related tools, though it does not explicitly mention that it updates a single build's detail.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like asc_add_to_beta_group or asc_set_beta_build_localization. The context of when to enable/disable auto notifications is implied but not explicit, and no when-not conditions are mentioned.

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