builds__beta_groups__remove

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces the destructive nature by saying 'unlink' and showing a DELETE endpoint, but it adds no further behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—such as side effects, prerequisites, or reversible/consequences of unlinking.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action, then includes the endpoint for reference. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple relationship removal with clearly documented parameters and annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains the core behavior and identifies the HTTP endpoint. However, it does not mention that this only unlinks beta groups rather than deleting them, nor does it reference the complementary 'add' operation, which would be useful for full context.

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 both 'id' and 'body' described. The description itself adds no parameter-level information. Since the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly, a score of 3 is appropriate (baseline for full 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 'Unlink beta groups from a build' uses a specific action verb and names both the resource being modified (build) and the related resource (beta groups). It also includes the exact REST endpoint, which unambiguously identifies the operation. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'builds__beta_groups__add'.

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 states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., beta_groups__builds__remove or builds__individual_testers__remove). The usage is implied by the word 'unlink' and the DELETE method, but no clear context or exclusions are given.

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