Delete a Game Center achievement by ID to remove outdated or incorrect achievement records from App Store Connect.
DELETE /v2/gameCenterAchievements/{id} (DELETE /v2/gameCenterAchievements/{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 says nothing beyond the HTTP verb. It does not state that the operation is destructive/irreversible, what permissions are required, whether the achievement is detached from its group or releases first, or what (if anything) is returned.
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-loaded, but the parenthetical '(DELETE /v2/gameCenterAchievements/{id})' is a verbatim duplicate of the first clause and contributes zero information, which is avoidable waste even in a one-line description.
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-resource deletion with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the essentials an agent needs: irreversibility, required scopes/permissions, and side effects on related Game Center resources. The route alone is insufficient for confident invocation.
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?
With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage ('the id of the requested resource'), the schema already documents the input fully. The description only echoes the {id} path placeholder and adds no format or sourcing detail, 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 conveys a specific verb and resource via the raw route 'DELETE /v2/gameCenterAchievements/{id}', so an agent can infer it deletes a Game Center achievement. However, it is written only as REST path syntax with no plain-language statement, and it does nothing to distinguish this from the many sibling delete_instance tools (e.g. game_center_achievements_delete_instance, the non-v2 variant).
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and nothing about preconditions, cascading effects, or relationship to the v1 delete_instance sibling. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the HTTP verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.