game_center_activities_leaderboards_delete_to_many_relationship

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. It says nothing about what the delete actually does (removes the activity-to-leaderboard relationships?), whether it is reversible, what permissions are required, or what the response is — it only points at the OpenAPI schema for the request envelope.

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 leads with the deprecation flag, which is good structure. However, the route path is duplicated verbatim in parentheses, which is pure waste, and the body-shape sentence merely names a schema without adding usable information.

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 relationship-deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested JSON:API body, the description should explain the effect of the call and the deprecation path. It instead repeats the HTTP route and defers everything else to an external OpenAPI component the agent may not have access to.

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%, so both the id and body parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the body schema name already present in the schema description, adding no extra semantics; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource — DELETE on the leaderboards relationship of a gameCenterActivity — which is unambiguous about what operation is performed. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from the nearby v2 sibling (game_center_activities_leaderboards_v2_delete_to_many_relationship), which is the obvious competing choice.

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 is a real usage signal that tells the agent not to select this tool, and it is front-loaded. But it never names the replacement (the v2 delete variant) nor explains when the legacy endpoint would still be used, so the routing decision is only implied.

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