game_center_achievement_localizations_v2_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 of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing: no statement that the deletion is irreversible, what happens to dependent resources, whether the id must exist, or what an error looks like. The word DELETE merely repeats the tool 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 wasteful: the same path is written twice, once as raw HTTP syntax and once in parentheses, adding no information. Nothing is front-loaded about what is being deleted or the consequences.

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-parameter delete with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum state irreversibility and any preconditions. The schema is complete, but the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a delete is entirely absent.

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% for the single required id parameter, so the schema already documents the argument fully. The description adds no format, scope, or constraint detail beyond the endpoint template. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 concrete verb and resource (DELETE on gameCenterAchievementLocalizations by id), so the operation is identifiable. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and endpoint, with no explanation of what a 'localization' is or how this differs from the v1 delete sibling (game_center_achievement_localizations_delete_instance) or the v2 update/get variants.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the v1 delete tool or the update tool. The only hint is the HTTP verb itself, which the agent must infer from the name anyway.

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