Remove testers

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the dry_run default of true, the mandatory show-the-plan-then-reapply sequence, the ASC_WRITE=1 environment prerequisite, and the non-obvious side effect that removing someone from their last group leaves them listed as a groupless tester.

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 tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the scope distinction and followed by the operational workflow. Every sentence carries information the agent needs; there is no filler.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety workflow, the auth requirement, the scope semantics, and the surprising residual state. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 75% and the schema already documents group and dry_run. The description still adds meaning the schema does not: that omitting 'group' removes the tester from every group and revokes build access, and that the app-level removal is distinct from merely leaving them group-less.

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 (removes) and resource (testers) and precisely distinguishes its two operating modes: scoped to one beta group versus app-wide when 'group' is omitted. An agent can tell immediately what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit selection logic for the group parameter (omit it to remove completely) and a clear two-step dry_run workflow with a user-confirmation gate. It does not name a sibling alternative such as invite_testers or list_testers, but the conditions for using this tool are unambiguous.

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