beta_testers__builds__add

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

The description says only 'Link builds to a beta tester' and includes the endpoint. It does not clarify whether the operation appends to existing relationships or replaces them, nor does it mention any side effects or prerequisites. Annotations already communicate write/non-idempotent/non-destructive status, and the description adds no complementary behavioral detail.

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 followed by the API endpoint, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The tool is a simple relationship-add operation. Combined with comprehensive schema descriptions and annotations, the one-sentence description is nearly sufficient. A minor missing detail is an explicit statement that 'id' refers to the beta tester's identifier, but this is inferable from the endpoint and tool name.

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%, with clear descriptions for 'id' ('ID from the matching list call') and 'body' (JSON:API request body), including the nested data array and type enum. The description mentions no parameters, but the schema fully documents them, so the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Link'), direct object ('builds'), and target ('to a beta tester'), which clearly identifies the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like beta_testers__builds__remove and beta_groups__builds__add, and the endpoint reinforces the direction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as builds__individual_testers__add (the inverse relationship) or beta_testers__builds__remove. It merely restates the action without giving context or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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