game_center_achievement_localizations_delete_instance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies an irreversible delete but says nothing about cascade effects on the parent achievement, required permissions, or what a success response contains. The [DEPRECATED] tag is the only behavioral signal beyond the verb.

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 and front-loads the deprecation warning, but the parenthetical restates the identical path verbatim, which is pure redundancy and the sole content besides the marker.

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 deprecated destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits the replacement endpoint and any migration note, which is exactly what an agent needs for a deprecated tool.

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 coverage is 100% ('the id of the requested resource'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no meaning about what the id refers to in context (a localization instance) beyond the path string.

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 gives a verb (DELETE) and a resource (gameCenterAchievementLocalizations), so the operation is identifiable, but it does little more than restate the tool name and, in the parenthetical, repeat the same path a second time. It never distinguishes this legacy endpoint from the v2 sibling (game_center_achievement_localizations_v2_delete_instance).

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?

The only guidance is the [DEPRECATED] marker, which usefully warns an agent away, but no successor tool is named and no conditions for legitimate use are given. An agent must guess whether to call this or the v2 delete variant.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.