builds__beta_groups__add

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

Annotations are all false and provide no safety signals, so the description carries the burden. The endpoint path and verb indicate a non-destructive write operation that modifies a relationship. However, it does not disclose whether the link is additive or replaces existing links, nor does it mention response behavior or side effects. It adds the endpoint context beyond annotations, but still leaves gaps.

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?

Two short sentences—one human-readable statement and one endpoint reference. Every word earns its place, with zero filler.

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, and with full schema coverage it is fairly self-contained. However, with no useful annotations and no output schema, the description does not cover potential nuances like whether linking replaces existing groups, required ordering, or error conditions. It is minimally viable but lacks contextual depth.

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%: 'id' is clearly described as 'ID from the matching list call' and 'body' as the JSON:API request body. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 uses the specific verb 'Link' with the resources 'beta groups' and 'build', clearly targeting the relationship creation. The endpoint path [POST /v1/builds/{id}/relationships/betaGroups] further disambiguates the operation, and it stands apart from sibling tools like builds__beta_groups__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 usage for establishing a relationship but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., builds__individual_testers__add) or provide exclusions. The endpoint and verb 'Link' suggest the operation, but there is no explicit guidance on contexts or prerequisites.

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