Delete a phased release for an App Store version to stop its gradual rollout. Use the release ID to cancel staged updates and revert users to full availability.
DELETE /v1/appStoreVersionPhasedReleases/{id} (DELETE /v1/appStoreVersionPhasedReleases/{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 about irreversibility, permission requirements, or what state change results from removing the phased release. The only signal is the literal 'DELETE' token, which merely repeats the operation type already implied by the name.
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 text is short but structurally wasteful: the identical path string is repeated twice in parentheses, adding zero information. Front-loading is fine, but the duplication is pure noise.
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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum state that the phased release record is permanently removed and note any required role or precondition. None of that is present, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.
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% with a single 'id' property documented as 'the id of the requested resource'. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 only echoes the tool name as an HTTP path, duplicated verbatim in parentheses. It does not explain in plain language what a phased release is or what deleting one accomplishes, so it is effectively a tautology of the name rather than a statement of purpose.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the phased release must exist or be inactive), and no routing to alternatives such as app_store_version_phased_releases_update_instance. The 'DELETE' verb implies usage minimally, but nothing is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.