builds__beta_groups__remove

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint: true and idempotentHint: true. The description adds only 'Unlink', which is consistent but does not provide further behavioral details such as idempotency implications, error conditions, or permission requirements. Minimal additional value over 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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus the endpoint. Information is front-loaded. Could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, but it is appropriately sized for a simple operation.

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 lacks details on prerequisites, return behavior (no output schema), and differentiation from sibling tools. For a destructive operation with a nested body, more context would help the agent understand implications.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'id' as 'Resource identifier' and body described as JSON:API request). Baseline 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: 'Unlink beta groups from a build.' It includes the HTTP endpoint, which adds context. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'beta_groups__builds__remove', which likely performs the same operation from a different resource perspective.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., adding beta groups, or the sibling tool). The description lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information.

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