game_center_leaderboard_set_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, and it delivers almost nothing: no mention of irreversibility, required auth/permissions, cascading effects on the leaderboard set, or failure modes. The only behavioral hint is the DELETE verb plus the deprecation flag, both of which are already implied by the name or a single word.

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, but the entire parenthetical '(DELETE /v1/gameCenterLeaderboardSetImages/{id})' duplicates the text immediately preceding it, which is pure waste. The deprecation flag is front-loaded, which is the one structural positive.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum flag irreversibility and point to the v2 successor. As written, an agent has only an HTTP verb and a path it could have derived from the tool name.

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 a single parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage ('the id of the requested resource'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, example, or sourcing hint for the id, making 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 states the HTTP verb (DELETE) and the resource path (gameCenterLeaderboardSetImages/{id}), so an agent can infer it deletes a leaderboard set image by id. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling game_center_leaderboard_set_images_v2_delete_instance, and the name itself already carries the verb+resource, so it largely restates the identifier. The [DEPRECATED] marker is the only genuine added signal.

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 [DEPRECATED] tag implies 'avoid this tool', but the description never names the v2 replacement that exists in the sibling list nor states what conditions would still require the v1 endpoint. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance is present.

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