game_center_achievement_releases_create_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that the endpoint is deprecated and that the body follows a JSON:API envelope. It says nothing about authentication requirements, side effects of the POST, whether the operation is reversible, or what a successful response contains.

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 two short clauses with the deprecation warning first, which is exactly the right thing to front-load. The redundant repetition of the endpoint string in parentheses is minor and there is no filler beyond that.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it gives a deprecation flag and a schema pointer but no plain-language purpose or behavior. The deprecation note justifies some brevity, yet an agent still lacks enough to decide whether to call it or what happens if it does.

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 only one 'body' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description merely repeats the same pointer to components.schemas.GameCenterAchievementReleaseCreateRequest, adding no field-level meaning; the baseline of 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 identifies the resource and HTTP method via 'POST /v1/gameCenterAchievementReleases,' which maps to creating an achievement release, and the DEPRECATED tag is front-loaded. However, it never states in plain language what an achievement release is or what creating one accomplishes, and it offers no differentiation from siblings like game_center_achievement_releases_get_instance or the various game_center_*_releases_create_instance tools.

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 '[DEPRECATED]' marker implicitly tells an agent to avoid this tool, which is a genuine usage signal, but there is no stated replacement, no alternative named, and no conditions describing when this call would still be appropriate. The agent is left to guess which sibling to use instead.

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