beta_groups__beta_testers__remove

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying that the operation unlinks (rather than deletes) testers, clarifying the scope of destruction to the relationship only. This context complements the annotations without contradicting them, though it does not mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits.

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 concise sentence followed by the REST endpoint. Every word contributes to understanding the operation, and the most important information (the action and resource) is front-loaded. No filler or redundant phrasing exists.

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 straightforward relationship removal, the description is largely sufficient. The annotations cover destructive and idempotent behavior, the schema fully documents parameters, and the endpoint clarifies the API contract. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly mention that the body accepts multiple testers per call, though the schema's array type implies this. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema provides 100% parameter coverage: 'id' is described as 'ID from the matching list call' and 'body' includes a detailed JSON:API structure. The description itself adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already documents, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance it.

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: 'Unlink beta testers from a beta group' with a specific resource and relationship, and includes the exact REST endpoint. This distinguishes it from related removal tools like builds__beta_groups__remove or beta_testers__beta_groups__remove by making the direction and scope of the operation 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?

The description implies usage by stating the action, and the REST endpoint provides context, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over similar alternatives such as beta_groups__beta_testers__add (the inverse operation) or beta_testers__beta_groups__remove (same relationship from a different perspective). No exclusions or 'when to use' guidance are provided, leaving the agent to infer based on naming conventions.

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