build_beta_notifications_create_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states nothing about side effects, permissions/authentication, idempotency, rate limits, or what the create actually changes—only the verb and route.

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?

It is short, but the endpoint is written twice ('POST /v1/buildBetaNotifications (POST /v1/buildBetaNotifications)'), which is pure redundancy, and the one substantive clause punts to an external OpenAPI spec that is not part of the definition.

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 mutation tool with a required nested JSON:API body, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies essentially nothing. It defers all meaning to an external OpenAPI document the agent may not have, leaving it unable to construct the body or predict the result.

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% and there is a single 'body' parameter whose shape is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the schema reference (components.schemas.BuildBetaNotificationCreateRequest), adding no new meaning, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name and HTTP route ('POST /v1/buildBetaNotifications'), repeating the same endpoint token twice. It never states in plain language what a beta notification is or that this creates one for a build, and it does nothing to distinguish it from the many other *_create_instance siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative guidance of any kind. Given the enormous sibling set containing dozens of create_instance tools (builds, beta_groups, beta_testers, etc.), the agent is given nothing to route on.

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