beta_groups__builds__add

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the behavioral outcome (testers can install the build) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or reversibility beyond what annotations imply.

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 one clear sentence plus the endpoint reference. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and target resource.

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 simple relationship-add operation with detailed schema and annotations, the description is sufficient. It clearly states the purpose and effect, and the schema documents the required body structure. Lack of output schema is acceptable for a mutation with no return value.

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 100%, and the body parameter is well-defined by the JSON:API schema. The description adds minimal value by noting the id comes from 'the matching list call,' but does not elaborate on how to construct the body or source build IDs beyond the 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 states a specific action ('Distribute a build to a TestFlight beta group') with a clear outcome ('so its testers can install it'), and the endpoint is provided. This distinguishes it from removal operations like beta_groups__builds__remove.

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 the use case of distributing builds to a group, but does not explicitly mention when to use it vs. alternatives such as builds__beta_groups__add or removal tools. It provides context but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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