Delete an App Store version experiment by ID to remove unwanted or obsolete tests from App Store Connect.
DELETE /v2/appStoreVersionExperiments/{id} (DELETE /v2/appStoreVersionExperiments/{id})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not that deletion is irreversible, not what happens to child treatments/localizations, not permission requirements, not whether the experiment must be stopped first. For a destructive operation this is a severe gap.
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?
It is short, but the single sentence is pure duplication of the route and title, so nothing earns its place. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient structure.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a destructive action, the description should at minimum warn about irreversibility and side effects on related experiment entities. None of that is present, leaving an agent unable to call this responsibly.
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?
There is a single `id` parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it; per the baseline rule this lands at 3. The description adds no additional meaning (no explanation of which id, or how to obtain it) 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?
The description is a bare restatement of the HTTP route already encoded in the tool name, with the parenthetical duplicating it verbatim. An agent learns only that this deletes an appStoreVersionExperiment resource, with no differentiation from the sibling app_store_version_experiments_delete_instance (v1) or any statement of scope.
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, and no mention of the near-identical v1 sibling delete_instance or the v2 update/create siblings. The agent must infer everything 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.