builds__individual_testers__remove

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the HTTP method but does not expand on behavioral nuances such as whether the testers themselves are deleted (they are not) or the effect of idempotency. With annotations covering the safety profile, the additional value is moderate.

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 sentence plus the endpoint, with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool's simplicity, the description and annotations provide sufficient context for a removal operation. No output schema exists, but the behavior is straightforward. The sibling tools (add, list) further contextualize the tool's role.

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%, so the input schema fully documents the parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, which is acceptable. 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 clearly states the action: 'Unlink individual testers from a build.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like builds__individual_testers__add and builds__individual_testers__list. The inclusion of the HTTP DELETE endpoint adds clarity.

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 when to use this tool—to remove tester links—but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like adding or listing testers. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage given the sibling tools.

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