game_center_leaderboard_images_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. It implies a destructive delete but discloses nothing about what is destroyed, whether the action is reversible, auth/scoping requirements, or side effects. The deprecation tag is the only extra context.

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-loads the deprecation notice, but the path is duplicated verbatim in parentheses, which is pure waste. Every sentence should earn its place, and the redundant repetition does not.

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 simple delete tool the schema covers the lone parameter, but with no annotations and no replacement guidance for a deprecated endpoint, an agent lacks the context to know whether to call it at all or what to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a single required 'id' parameter already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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 HTTP verb and resource path — 'DELETE /v1/gameCenterLeaderboardImages/{id}' — making clear it deletes a game center leaderboard image by id. This distinguishes it from siblings like get/update_instance. However, it is essentially a raw endpoint restatement with no plain-language framing.

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 guidance is the '[DEPRECATED]' prefix, which hints the tool should be avoided but names no replacement. There is no statement of when to use it versus the v2 delete siblings (e.g., game_center_leaderboard_images_v2_delete_instance) or any prerequisites.

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