set_build_test_notesSets a build's TestFlight "What to Test" notes for one locale, creating or replacing the tester-facing text.
Sets a build's TestFlight "What to Test" notes for one locale, creating or replacing them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | Locale code, e.g. en-US. | en-US |
| buildId | Yes | Build ID (from list_builds). | |
| whatsNew | Yes | The "What to Test" text testers see (up to 4000 characters). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that existing notes are replaced rather than appended, matching the idempotent hint, but it omits permission requirements and the fact that other locales are untouched.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the operation and appends the upsert behavior. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.
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 three-parameter write with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is preconditions (build must exist and be in TestFlight) and who can perform the write, which an agent would want before calling.
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 locale, buildId and whatsNew are all documented in-schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only the qualifier "for one locale," reinforcing that locale scopes the write, without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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?
A specific verb ("Sets") plus a precisely named resource ("a build's TestFlight 'What to Test' notes") and an explicit scope ("for one locale"). No sibling tool touches TestFlight test notes, so an agent can select it immediately without ambiguity.
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 the use case (writing tester-facing notes on an existing build) and discloses upsert semantics via "creating or replacing them," but it never states prerequisites, such as the build needing to be in TestFlight, nor does it name any alternative or condition where another tool would be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.