add_build_to_beta_group

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states the assignment action without any details on side effects, idempotency, permissions, or consequences for existing assignments. This is a mutation tool with no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Assign'.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple action with two parameters.

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 (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the core function but lacks important context such as prerequisites (e.g., build must exist, group must be in a certain state) or whether the assignment is cumulative. It is minimally viable but not rich enough for a mutation operation.

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% with each parameter described ('The build ID to add' and 'The beta group ID'). The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Assign') and the resources ('build' to 'TestFlight beta group'), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_beta_groups or get_build. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and siblings.

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