Delete a Game Center achievement image by ID through the App Store Connect API to remove outdated or incorrect artwork from an achievement.
DELETE /v2/gameCenterAchievementImages/{id} (DELETE /v2/gameCenterAchievementImages/{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: no statement that this is a destructive, irreversible removal, no prerequisites, no auth requirements, no side effects on referenced localizations. A single-line route echo is inadequate for a mutation tool.
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 same route string is printed twice in parentheses, which is pure redundancy rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded explanation of purpose, only a duplicated endpoint line.
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 delete with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum state consequences and prerequisites. It instead provides only the HTTP verb and path, leaving the agent without the information needed to invoke it safely.
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?
Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100% ('the id of the requested resource'), so the schema already documents it. The path template {id} in the description is consistent but adds no meaning; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.
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 restates the tool name as an HTTP route: 'DELETE /v2/gameCenterAchievementImages/{id}'. It identifies a delete on a gameCenterAchievementImages v2 resource, but adds nothing beyond what the name and path already convey, and never explains what an achievement image is or what deleting one means. This is close to a tautology.
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 on when to use this tool, when not to, or how it differs from the v1 sibling 'game_center_achievement_images_delete_instance' or other image delete endpoints. Nothing tells the agent which of the many delete tools to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.