Delete a specific beta recruitment criterion in App Store Connect by its ID. Use this to remove outdated or incorrect TestFlight recruitment criteria from your beta program.
DELETE /v1/betaRecruitmentCriteria/{id} (DELETE /v1/betaRecruitmentCriteria/{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 burden — and it discloses nothing. For a destructive DELETE it never states that the operation is irreversible, whether it requires specific roles/permissions, whether it cascades to beta group associations, or what happens if the id does not exist.
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?
Extremely short, but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. The route string is also duplicated inside parentheses with zero added information, which is wasted content rather than a meaningful front-load.
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 single-resource delete with no annotations, no output schema, and no natural-language text, the description is completely inadequate — an agent gets no safety context, no confirmation behavior, and no indication of side effects.
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 the single id parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's {id} path template confirms it is a path parameter but adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema already says.
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 just the raw HTTP route (DELETE /v1/betaRecruitmentCriteria/{id}) repeated verbatim in parentheses. It does name a verb and resource, so it is not entirely opaque, but it restates the tool name's own 'delete_instance' semantics rather than explaining what a recruitment criterion is or what deleting one accomplishes — a tautology rather than a description.
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 whatsoever on when to use this versus siblings such as beta_recruitment_criteria_update_instance or beta_groups_beta_recruitment_criteria_get_to_one_relationship. No prerequisites, no mention of what state the criterion must be in to be deletable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.