beta_testers__beta_groups__remove

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the basic action ('Unlink') and the endpoint, with no additional details about effects, reversibility, or prerequisites. This meets the lower bar expected when annotations are present but does little to enrich understanding.

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 concise sentence plus the endpoint, with zero wasted words. It immediately communicates the action and the target resource, fitting the standard of effective front-loading.

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 presence of a nested body schema and annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the minimal description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not clarify whether the body is truly optional and what happens if it is omitted (e.g., unlink all groups), which could mislead the agent. This slight gap prevents a higher score.

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%: both 'id' and 'body' have descriptive schema entries, including the note 'ID from the matching list call' and the Apple schema reference. The description itself adds no parameter-level information, so it appropriately relies on the schema's high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Unlink') and clearly identifies the resource ('beta groups from a beta tester'), which precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like beta_groups__beta_testers__remove (which removes testers from a group). The included HTTP endpoint further clarifies the exact operation.

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, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as beta_groups__beta_testers__remove. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so the agent must infer from the naming convention.

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