Deletes a Game Center challenge image by its ID through the App Store Connect API, removing the specified instance from your app's Game Center configuration.
DELETE /v1/gameCenterChallengeImages/{id} (DELETE /v1/gameCenterChallengeImages/{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, yet it only conveys 'DELETE' from the raw route. It does not disclose irreversibility, required auth/permissions, side effects on related resources, or what is returned, leaving a destructive operation largely unspecified.
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 entire description is a duplicated fragment: the same route is repeated verbatim in parentheses, which is pure waste. There is no front-loaded intent statement, just a redundant restatement.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent needs to call it safely (reversibility, permissions, consequences). It is inadequate for the complexity of a delete operation.
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% with a single documented 'id' parameter, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint beyond the schema's placeholder, warranting the baseline 3.
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 restates the tool name as a raw HTTP route ('DELETE /v1/gameCenterChallengeImages/{id}'), which is a tautology of the operation embedded in the name. It does identify the verb and resource, but adds no natural-language description of what the delete actually does.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as game_center_challenge_images_update_instance or get_instance, nor any preconditions. The agent is left to infer context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.