game_center_leaderboard_localizations_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 burden for a destructive operation, yet it says nothing about irreversibility, cascade effects on the parent leaderboard, or required auth scopes. The only behavioral context added is the deprecation flag.

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 marker, but the HTTP path is repeated verbatim inside parentheses, which is redundant filler rather than useful 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 destructive DELETE with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it gives no confirmation of what a successful response looks like, no reversibility note, and no migration pointer to the v2 tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter and the schema states it is the id of the requested resource. The description adds no format details, but with complete schema documentation 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 name and description identify a specific verb (DELETE) and resource (gameCenterLeaderboardLocalizations/{id}), so the operation is legible. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling game_center_leaderboard_localizations_v2_delete_instance, leaving the agent to infer which version applies.

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]' marker, which implies avoidance but never names a replacement or states when this tool is still required. A deprecated delete tool should explicitly route callers to the v2 equivalent.

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