game_center_achievements_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 behavioral burden. 'DELETE' implies a destructive mutation, but the description says nothing about permissions/scopes required, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, or side effects on related releases and localizations. The deprecation note is useful context but does not describe behavior.

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 the deprecation warning is correctly front-loaded, but the parenthetical restates the exact same path already given, which is pure redundancy with no added value. The content is minimal, not because it is efficiently written but because little was written.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits what an agent most needs: the recommended replacement and any behavioral caveats. Flagging deprecation without naming a successor leaves the agent unable to route correctly among the many game_center_achievements delete siblings.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'id' adequately. The description adds nothing about the id format or how to obtain it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the operation and resource via the HTTP verb and path (DELETE /v1/gameCenterAchievements/{id}), which an agent can decode, but it is essentially the tool name re-rendered as a route rather than a plain-language statement of purpose. The [DEPRECATED] tag is the only genuinely new information, and it does help distinguish this from the v2 delete sibling.

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 usage signal is the [DEPRECATED] prefix, which implies 'prefer something else' but never states the alternative or the condition under which this tool should still be called. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named replacement (e.g. game_center_achievements_v2_delete_instance).

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