game_center_leaderboard_releases_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. The DELETE verb implies a destructive, likely irreversible mutation, but the description says nothing about required permissions, whether deletion cascades, or whether the operation is reversible. The deprecation flag is the only behavioral context 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?

It is a single short line with the deprecation warning front-loaded, which is good. However, the endpoint path is duplicated verbatim in the parenthetical, so roughly half the text does no work. Short but not fully earned.

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 single-parameter delete with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the operation and target. But with zero annotations it should explain the destructive consequences, and given the deprecation it should point to a successor tool. Those omissions leave real gaps.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as 'the id of the requested resource'. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the path placeholder. With the schema doing the work, the baseline of 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 conveys a specific verb+resource (DELETE on gameCenterLeaderboardReleases) and the path confirms the id-addressed resource, so an agent can infer it removes a leaderboard release. However, it is expressed as a raw REST endpoint rather than prose, and it never differentiates itself from near-identical siblings such as game_center_leaderboard_set_releases_delete_instance or game_center_achievement_releases_delete_instance. The [DEPRECATED] tag adds a signal but not clarity of purpose.

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 statement of when to use this tool, prerequisites, or which alternative to prefer. The only guidance-like content is the [DEPRECATED] marker, which usefully warns the agent away, but it names no replacement, so the agent is left guessing what to call instead. That falls short of real usage guidance.

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