Assign individual beta testers to a build to grant them testing access. Provide the build ID and tester data to update the relationship.
Link individual testers to a build. [POST /v1/builds/{id}/relationships/individualTesters]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID from the matching list call. | |
| body | Yes | JSON:API request body (Apple schema: BuildIndividualTestersLinkagesRequest). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"ID from the matching list call."v2.0.0Input schema / properties / id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Resource identifier."v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the declared action, such as whether relationships are appended or replaced, or any permission requirements. For a mutation tool, more transparency is expected.
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 extremely concise: two sentences that state the purpose and the endpoint. Every word earns its place, and no unnecessary information is included.
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?
Given the moderate complexity (nested body object) and the annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role. The endpoint and purpose are clear, and the schema handles parameter details. Minor gap: it doesn't explain relationship replacement vs. appending, but this is not essential for basic 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both id and body fully described in the input schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 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 clearly states the action: 'Link individual testers to a build.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like builds__individual_testers__list and builds__individual_testers__remove. The endpoint reference further reinforces purpose.
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 makes it clear this tool is for adding/linking individual testers to a build. It does not explicitly contrast with other add tools like builds__beta_groups__add, but the name and endpoint provide sufficient context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.