Remove TestFlight tester from groups

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by specifying what is destroyed — access to builds shared through those groups. It stops short of saying whether the tester survives in other groups or how to undo it, which would have earned a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the action stated first and the consequence second. Nothing redundant against the title or annotations.

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 two-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition covers action, scope and effect adequately. The one meaningful gap is whether removal is partial (some group IDs invalid) and whether the tester record persists elsewhere.

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 betaTesterId and betaGroupIds documented including their source list tools, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no semantics beyond it — e.g. whether unknown group IDs fail the whole call or are skipped — 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Removes a tester from TestFlight beta groups') and adds the concrete effect of losing access to builds shared through those groups. It is unambiguous versus siblings like invite_beta_tester or add_build_to_beta_groups, though it never explicitly distinguishes group removal from full tester deletion.

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 guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must the tester exist in those groups first?), and no alternatives named. The only implicit cue is the stated consequence, which hints at the intent but doesn't route the agent between options.

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