Delete a beta build localization by ID to remove outdated TestFlight build text from App Store Connect.
DELETE /v1/betaBuildLocalizations/{id} (DELETE /v1/betaBuildLocalizations/{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. The DELETE verb implies a destructive mutation, but nothing is said about irreversibility, cascading effects, required permissions, or error behavior for a missing id. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial 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 a single short line and the verb/path is front-loaded, but the path is needlessly duplicated in parentheses, adding characters without adding information. Brief, yet the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the consequences of deletion, auth/permission requirements, and confirmation behavior. Schema coverage is complete for the single parameter, but the behavioral envelope an agent needs before calling a delete 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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single 'id' parameter documented as 'the id of the requested resource'. The description adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail 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 states a specific HTTP verb and resource path (DELETE /v1/betaBuildLocalizations/{id}), so the operation and target are identifiable. However, it is essentially a REST-ified restatement of the tool name 'beta_build_localizations_delete_instance' and does not differentiate the tool from the many sibling delete_instance tools beyond what the name already conveys.
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, no mention of alternative tools (e.g. beta_build_localizations_update_instance). The agent gets no signal about when deletion is appropriate versus updating or fetching the localization.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.