builds__individual_testers__add

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

Annotations are neutral (not readOnly, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds no additional behavioral details such as idempotency, error handling, or side effects. It is minimal beyond the action.

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 very short (one sentence plus endpoint). It is efficient and front-loaded but could benefit from slightly more context without being verbose.

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 mutation nature and no output schema, the description does not mention expected response, error scenarios, or prerequisites. It is adequate but lacks completeness for a comprehensive tool guide.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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' with a specific verb and resource. The included HTTP endpoint and sibling tools (list/remove) confirm distinct 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not differentiate from adding testers via beta groups or other methods. The description only states the basic action.

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