Update beta group details such as name, feedback, and public link settings to adjust tester access and engagement.
Update a beta group. [PATCH /v1/betaGroups/{id}]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID from the matching list call. | |
| body | Yes | JSON:API request body (Apple schema: BetaGroupUpdateRequest). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"ID from the matching list call."v2.0.0Input schema / properties / id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Resource identifier."v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotent, non-readonly, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only the PATCH endpoint, which hints at partial updates but does not explicitly state whether it is partial or full replacement, what fields are affected, or any side effects. No contradiction with annotations.
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 with no redundancy, earning high marks for conciseness. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification, which slightly lowers the structural value.
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 mutating tool with a nested body and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks factual context about partial update semantics, required fields, prerequisites, or response expectations, making it incomplete 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?
Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (id and body). The schema already explains the JSON:API structure and available attributes. The description adds no significant semantic details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Update a beta group') and provides the HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by the verb 'update' and resource 'beta group', though it doesn't specify what attributes can be updated.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as obtaining the beta group ID from a list call, or that this should be used to modify specific settings. Only the schema's 'id' description hints at needing a matching list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.