game_center_leaderboard_images_v2_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, and it discloses nothing: not whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, not whether it cascades to related images/localizations, not what permissions are required, and not what the response contains. The single word DELETE is the only signal, and it is already in the name.

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 text is short but wasteful: the exact same endpoint string appears twice with no additional information in the repetition. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and no guidance, the definition is inadequate. An agent cannot determine from this description whether calling it is safe, what it destroys, or how to recover.

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 one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('the id of the requested resource'), so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no format, provenance, or constraint information beyond it, which makes the baseline 3 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 is a tautology: it restates the tool name as an HTTP method plus path, and then repeats that identical path in parentheses. It does identify the resource (gameCenterLeaderboardImages v2) and the operation (DELETE), but adds no differentiation from siblings such as game_center_leaderboard_set_images_v2_delete_instance beyond what the tool name already encodes.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. With dozens of near-identical *_delete_instance and *_v2_delete_instance siblings, the absence of any selection criteria is a real gap.

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