game_center_activity_version_releases_delete_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the HTTP verb. It does not say whether the deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related entities, what permissions or app state are required, or what happens on a missing/already-deleted id. The [DEPRECATED] flag is the only behavioral signal offered.

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 string is short, but the parenthetical '(DELETE /v1/gameCenterActivityVersionReleases/{id})' is a verbatim duplicate of the text before it, which is pure waste. The deprecation marker is correctly front-loaded, but the redundancy costs it points on structure.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate: it says nothing about reversibility, preconditions, or the deprecation path forward. An agent has no basis for deciding whether calling this is safe or what it should do instead.

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 parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('the id of the requested resource'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, source, or constraint detail beyond the {id} placeholder repeated in the path, making this baseline-3 territory.

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 contains a specific verb (DELETE) and a specific resource path (gameCenterActivityVersionReleases/{id}), and the [DEPRECATED] marker conveys status. However, the purpose is expressed as raw REST notation rather than describing what a 'release' is or what deletion means semantically, and it does nothing to distinguish this from the many sibling delete_instance tools beyond the resource name itself.

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 the sibling create/get release tools, nor on prerequisites such as whether the release must be unpublished first. The [DEPRECATED] tag hints the tool should be avoided, but it names no replacement, leaving the agent with no actionable alternative.

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