Delete a Game Center leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the irreversible nature of the operation ('permanently delete'), which is a critical trait. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as permission requirements, potential cascading effects, or behavior on invalid IDs, so coverage is minimal.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation, though it omits important details. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 delete tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description should at least explain what leaderboardId is and what happens after deletion. It only states the action and permanence, leaving the agent without guidance on required inputs or expected outcomes. The definition is incomplete for an agent to call correctly.

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 0%, and the tool description does not mention the leaderboardId parameter at all. The agent must infer its meaning from the parameter name, which is somewhat self-explanatory but not documented. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema description, leaving a semantic gap.

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 (permanently delete) and the resource (Game Center leaderboard), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like create_game_center_leaderboard or list_game_center_leaderboards. An agent can immediately understand the tool's purpose 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of conditions like leaderboard existence or ownership. The description provides no context for decision-making, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.

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