beta_testers__builds__remove

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

The description adds the HTTP method DELETE and the term 'unlink', implying a destructive operation. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true). 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 concise sentence plus the endpoint URL. It is well-structured and front-loaded. It could include more detail without losing conciseness.

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 description is minimal and does not explain the effect of unlinking builds (e.g., availability changes). It lacks information about the body structure or the relationship between beta tester and builds, which is crucial for correct invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter information. The description does not add any semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 'Unlink builds from a beta tester', which is a specific verb and resource. It matches the tool name. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like beta_testers__builds__add or beta_groups__builds__remove, which have similar naming.

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. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or any exclusion criteria. The destructive hint is only in annotations, not in the description.

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